By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

Easter Sunday is the most sacred day in the Christian faith. It is not merely a celebration of hope, renewal, or moral virtue. It is the proclamation of a historical and theological reality: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was crucified for our sins and raised bodily from the dead.
That truth is not symbolic. It is not interchangeable. And it is not compatible with competing religious claims.

Recently, I received an Easter message that attempted to place the Resurrection of Jesus Christ alongside the observance of Ramadan, drawing favorable comparisons between the two and suggesting that our various faith traditions ultimately lead us toward the same moral and spiritual ends. The message was well-written, gracious in tone, and clearly intended to promote unity and mutual respect.

But it revealed something deeply concerning.

It reflected a growing tendency—even among those who claim Christian identity—to blur the theological lines that Scripture draws with clarity.

This is not a minor issue. It is a theological crisis.

The Apostle Paul makes the stakes unmistakably clear:
“If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14, ESV).

The Resurrection is not one truth among many. It is the foundation of the Christian faith. Remove it—or redefine it—and Christianity itself collapses.

In recent years, it has become increasingly common to see Christian leaders acknowledge other religious observances—such as Ramadan—alongside Easter, emphasizing shared virtues like discipline, prayer, and compassion. While these virtues are commendable, this framing risks creating a false equivalence between fundamentally different theological systems.

Christianity and Islam do not merely take different paths to the same destination. They make contradictory claims about the most essential question of all: Who is Jesus Christ?

Jesus declares in unmistakable terms:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6, ESV).

This is not a statement that allows for theological blending. It is a declaration of exclusivity.
To place the Resurrection alongside other religious traditions as though they are parallel expressions of shared spiritual truth is to obscure the very message Easter proclaims—that salvation is found in Christ alone.

This concern is not about hostility toward people of other faiths. Christians are called to love their neighbors, treat all people with dignity, and engage respectfully in a pluralistic society. But love does not require theological compromise. Respect does not require doctrinal confusion.

The early Church understood this clearly. Surrounded by competing religious systems, it did not seek to find common theological ground at the expense of truth. It proclaimed the risen Christ boldly, even when doing so invited opposition.

What we are witnessing today is something different. It is the subtle but steady movement toward a form of interfaith expression that prioritizes unity over truth, sentiment over doctrine, and cultural acceptance over biblical fidelity.

This shift is particularly concerning within institutions and organizations that carry Christian heritage or influence. When leaders in these spaces speak in ways that suggest all faith traditions ultimately lead to the same moral or spiritual ends, they are not building unity—they are eroding clarity.

And without clarity, there can be no true witness.

The Black Church, in particular, has a rich history of theological conviction that fueled both spiritual revival and social transformation. Its strength was not found merely in its institutions or its activism, but in its unwavering commitment to the authority of Scripture and the centrality of the Gospel.

That commitment is what gave it moral authority.

The Church did not change the world by blending its message with surrounding ideologies. It changed the world by proclaiming a truth that stood above them all.

We would do well to remember that today.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing that people of other faiths practice discipline, generosity, or devotion. These are reflections of common grace. But we must not confuse shared virtues with shared truth.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ stands alone.

It is the dividing line of history. It is the validation of Christ’s identity as the Son of God. And it is the only basis upon which sinners are reconciled to a holy God.

To dilute that message—especially on Resurrection Sunday—is to lose the very thing we are called to proclaim.

Jesus teaches in Luke 8:15 that those who bear fruit are those who “hold [the word] fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience” (ESV).

That is the call before the Church today.

Not to adapt the message for cultural comfort.
Not to soften truth for the sake of unity.
But to hold fast to the Word of God with clarity, conviction, and courage.

Because the world does not need a more agreeable Church.

It needs a faithful one.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

When a political leader is compared to Jesus Christ, something has gone deeply wrong—not in politics, but in the Church.

Recent comments by a spiritual advisor to President Donald Trump sparked backlash after she compared his personal and political struggles to the suffering of Christ, describing a “familiar pattern” of being “betrayed,” “arrested,” and “falsely accused.¹” These remarks, made during an Easter event, quickly drew criticism across the political and theological spectrum, with many calling the comparison inappropriate and even blasphemous.²

While the controversy has been framed politically, the real issue is theological. This is not about whether one supports or opposes Donald Trump. It is about whether the Church is willing to guard the uniqueness and supremacy of Jesus Christ.

Scripture leaves no ambiguity about who Christ is. He is the sinless Son of God, the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, and the only mediator between God and man. As Acts 4:12 (ESV) declares, “There is salvation in no one else.” The suffering of Christ was not symbolic, nor was it merely an example of perseverance under pressure. It was the once-for-all atoning sacrifice for sin.

To compare the political trials of any leader—Republican or Democrat—to the redemptive work of Christ is to collapse categories that must never be confused. The cross is not a metaphor for hardship. It is the center of human history and the foundation of our salvation. When we draw careless parallels, we do not elevate the leader—we diminish the Savior.

What makes this moment particularly significant is that it reveals a deeper issue within the Church. We are witnessing a growing tendency to blur the line between biblical authority and political allegiance. On one side, there are those who reshape biblical teaching to align with cultural trends. On the other hand, there are those who elevate political figures to near-spiritual significance. Both errors stem from the same root: a departure from the authority of Scripture.

This is what I have described as the heart of apostasy—not necessarily a rejection of faith, but a gradual reordering of it. When political outcomes become so important that we begin to adjust our theology to defend them, we have already lost something essential. The Church is no longer speaking prophetically to the culture; it is being shaped by it.

None of this means that Christians should withdraw from public life. The Church must engage the world, advocate for justice, and participate in the political process. But that engagement must always be governed by a biblical worldview. Political leaders may be used by God. They may promote policies that better align with biblical values. But they are not saviors, and they must never be treated as such.

Jesus Himself made this distinction clear when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36, ESV). The Church must never confuse the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of men. When it does, it loses both its clarity and its credibility.

This moment should serve as a sobering reminder. The greatest threat to the Church is not simply secular opposition, but theological confusion from within. When we begin to speak about political leaders in terms that belong only to Christ, we reveal how easily our loyalties can drift.

There is only one who was betrayed, arrested, and crucified for the sins of the world. Only one who rose on the third day in victory over death. Only one who is worthy of our ultimate allegiance.

His name is Jesus Christ.

And the Church must never forget that. Because the moment we begin to compare political leaders to Christ, we have not elevated the leader—we have diminished the Savior.
____________
1. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/paula-white-cain-spiritual-advisor-trump-jesus-christ-b2950689.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
2. https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-censors-toe-curling-video-of-trump-being-compared-to-christ-by-paula-white/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Dr. Eric M.Wallace

On March 30, 2026, Jayden Ivey was reportedly released from the Chicago Bulls after expressing his Christian convictions regarding LGBTQ ideology and the NBA’s public support of that worldview. He lamented the cultural pressure to affirm a lifestyle that, according to Scripture, is sinful.

If true, this moment should give us pause—not only because of what it says about professional sports, but because of what it reveals about our culture.

The irony is hard to miss.

We are living in a time when many on the Left march under banners like “No Kings,” warning of authoritarianism and labeling their opponents as intolerant, even fascist. Yet increasingly, it is those who hold to historic, biblical convictions who find themselves silenced, marginalized, or removed.

As I argue in The Heart of Apostasy, we are witnessing a form of cultural “doublethink,” reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984—a world where truth is inverted, where disagreement is redefined as harm, and where dissent from approved ideology is treated as disqualifying. In such a climate, you are only labeled a “dictator” if you refuse to conform.

This dynamic becomes especially troubling when major cultural institutions—like the NBA, NFL, and MLB—serve as platforms for advancing a singular moral vision. Pride nights, public messaging, and organizational alignment with specific ideologies communicate that affirmation is not optional—it is expected.

There was a time when sports offered a temporary escape from the pressures of public life. Today, that space has largely disappeared. Moral questions have become political, and institutions once centered on competition and excellence are now arenas for ideological enforcement.

But the most pressing question is not about the leagues.

It is about the Church.

Where is the Church when a young Christian athlete faces consequences for expressing his faith?

Where is the moral clarity?
Where is the collective voice?
Where is the willingness to stand?
This is especially significant for the Black Church, which has historically affirmed the authority of Scripture on matters of faith and morality. If those convictions still hold, why the silence?

We have seen calls for boycotts and public protest over other issues. Why not here? Why does the loss of a young man’s livelihood for expressing biblical convictions not rise to the same level of concern?

Has the cultural pressure become so strong that even the Church hesitates to speak?

Scripture reminds us in Galatians 1:10 (ESV):
“For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

The issue before us is not merely political—it is spiritual.

When the Church begins to measure its voice by cultural approval rather than biblical truth, it loses its prophetic power. And when that happens, the culture does not become more righteous—the Church simply becomes less relevant.

This is what I describe as the heart of apostasy: a gradual departure from biblical authority in favor of cultural conformity.

The path forward is not outrage alone. It is repentance.

Repentance that begins with the people of God.
Repentance that restores clarity, courage, and conviction.
Repentance that leads to renewal.

May God have mercy on His Church as we celebrate the ressurection of our Lord!

And may He once again raise up a people who will stand firmly on His Word—regardless of the cost. 

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

At a recent gathering reflecting on the relationship between Scripture and public life, Anthony Bradley argued that the historic Black church offers a model of political engagement that is neither ideological nor partisan, but purely biblical—rooted in a vision of human dignity that stands above politics and judges it.

On the surface, this claim is compelling. It reflects a longing many of us share: that the Church would once again speak with clarity into the public square, unbound by partisan agendas and anchored in the authority of God’s Word.

But Bradley’s argument, while insightful in parts, ultimately rests on a historical and theological oversimplification—one that obscures not only the complexity of the past, but also the nature of the crisis we face today.

That crisis is what I call the heart of apostasy—not merely moral failure, but a gradual, often subtle drift away from the authority of Scripture as the final rule for faith, doctrine, and life.

A Politically Engaged Church—But Biblically Grounded
What is often overlooked in modern discussions is that the historic Black church was never apolitical. It was deeply engaged in public life, and at critical moments in American history, that engagement carried clear political implications.

In the decades following the Civil War, Black Christians overwhelmingly aligned themselves with the Republican Party. This was not the result of partisan tribalism as we understand it today, but of biblical conviction applied to political reality. The Republican Party, shaped by the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionist movement, stood in opposition to slavery and later resisted the legal framework of segregation advanced by Democrats in the South.

The Black church became the central institution for civic life. Pastors were not only shepherds of souls but leaders of communities navigating an openly hostile social order. Churches functioned as places of worship, education, organization, and resistance—anchored in the conviction that every human being bears the image of God.

This was not ideology. It was theology applied.

The distinction is crucial. Political engagement flowed from Scripture, not the other way around. The Church did not derive its moral vision from political systems; it judged those systems according to the Word of God.

This is precisely what is being lost today.

The Early Seeds of Drift
Bradley suggests that the ideological corruption of the Black church is largely a late twentieth-century development, associated with the rise of Black liberation theology under James Cone.

But the historical record suggests that the seeds of this shift were planted earlier.

The Social Gospel movement, the increasing pressure for institutional activism, and the formation of bodies such as the Progressive National Baptist Convention in 1961 all reflect a growing tendency to frame the Church's mission in political terms.

This did not immediately displace biblical authority. But it introduced a subtle reorientation:
The Church was no longer simply applying Scripture to public life—it was increasingly being asked to interpret Scripture through the lens of social and political concerns.
This is the beginning of apostasy—not outright rejection, but reordering.

As Jesus warns in Luke 8, the seed that is sown can be choked—not only by persecution, but by competing influences that gradually suffocate the Word.

Martin Luther King Jr.: A Transitional Figure
No figure better represents this transition than Martin Luther King Jr.

King was a powerful preacher and a central moral voice in American history. His rhetoric drew deeply from Scripture, and his commitment to nonviolence reflected a profound moral vision.

But he was not a neutral representative of the earlier Black church tradition.

King was shaped by liberal Protestant theology, which often reinterprets Scripture in light of modern intellectual frameworks. He expressed doubts about certain traditional doctrines and emphasized the ethical teachings of Jesus in ways that did not always align with historic Christian orthodoxy.

Economically, he moved toward democratic socialism, advocating for policies such as a guaranteed income. While he rejected communism explicitly, he maintained relationships with individuals who had communist affiliations—raising legitimate concerns even in his own time.

None of this erases his contributions. But it does mean that King must be understood as a transitional figure—one whose use of biblical language was increasingly intertwined with philosophical and political commitments.

And this is precisely how apostasy advances—not through open rebellion, but through mixture.

When Scripture Is No Longer First
The central question is not whether the Church should engage in politics. It always has.

The question is this:
Does Scripture interpret our political engagement, or does our political engagement reinterpret Scripture?

The historic Black church, at its best, allowed Scripture to stand in judgment over every system—slavery, segregation, and any structure that denied the dignity of the person.

But when experience, oppression, or political aspiration becomes the controlling lens, Scripture is no longer primary. It is reshaped, reinterpreted, and, ultimately, subordinated.

This is what I call the heart of apostasy.

It is not always loud. It is often subtle. It does not begin with rejecting the Bible, but with redefining its authority.

And it is not confined to the political left.

Conservative Christians have fallen into the same trap—filtering Scripture through partisan commitments, using the Bible to defend political positions rather than allowing it to confront them.

In both cases, the result is the same: The Word of God is no longer the standard. It becomes a tool.

A Divided Church, A Diminished Witness
The consequences are now visible.

The Church is increasingly divided along political lines. Believers speak more fluently in the language of ideology than in the language of Scripture. People are reduced to categories. Justice is redefined according to partisan frameworks. And the prophetic voice of the Church is weakened because it echoes the culture rather than confronting it.

This is not merely a political problem. It is a theological one. It is the evidence of a heart that has drifted.

A Call to Return
If we are to recover a faithful public witness, we must go deeper than nostalgia for a misunderstood past.

We must return to the foundation that made that witness possible in the first place: The full authority of Scripture over every sphere of life.

The Apostle Paul writes: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…” (Romans 12:2, ESV)

This is not a call to withdraw from public life, but to engage it rightly—under the authority of God’s Word.

It means:

• affirming the full counsel of Scripture
• rejecting ideological distortions from every direction
• grounding human dignity in the image of God, not in social categories or political frameworks
• and proclaiming truth even when it stands against the spirit of the age

Conclusion: The Real Issue
Anthony Bradley is right about one thing: Scripture must come first.

But when we look more closely at the history he invokes, we do not find a pure, ideology-free model. We find a Church that was politically engaged, biblically grounded—and, in some cases, eventually gradually reshaped by competing influences.

The issue is not whether the Church engages in politics.

The issue is whether the Church remains under the authority of Scripture when it does.

Because the greatest danger is not political opposition.

It is a theological drift.
It is the quiet, often unnoticed shift where Scripture is no longer first. It is, ultimately, the heart of apostasy.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Patrick Hall

"No, things are awful, America sucks, Donald Trump is Hitler, we all live on stolen land, racism and sexism define our history, and you’re actually miserable, plus something-something Epstein!”

I am more than aware that the above statement can be taken as complete hyperbole.   But as a recovering former Democrat now approaching my fifth decade of sobriety, I don’t think the above parody is that far afield.  

It has gotten to the point that far too many Democratic politicians and their greater polity seem to hate Trump more than they love America.   Actually, this has been pretty much the game plan or “immutable mindset” of far too many Americans who call themselves Democrats. From the time Donald Trump first came down the escalator at Trump Towers in 2015, to the current fight over Trump's “Save America Act which seeks to protect the right to vote by requiring an ID.  Most Americans don’t see this as controversial. Every legitimate democracy on earth requires proof of identity, including France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and India, to name a few. What is so bat-shit crazy is the idea that only citizens should vote is somehow contentious.  As pointed out by Trump, the idea of requiring ID and proof of citizenship to vote in American elections tells you how far off the rails the body politic and Democrats have gone.  

What is even goofier is that far too many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, along with Chuck Schumer (D-NY), want us to believe that requiring an ID to vote is “racist.”

Even politically biased left-of-center polls such as Reuters, Quinnipiac, or even U-Mass Center for Public Opinion, view the ID requirement as an 80-20 issue among all registered voters.

Another suicidal non-starter of the Democratic polity is their continuing holdup of DHS funding, which places all Americans at risk. Remember, all the current political posturing by the Progressive, Liberal, Socialist wing of the Democratic Party (all the same entity) was precipitated by President Joe Biden’s open or “no border” policies.

As I mentioned in a previous FJM piece, it only took 19 Islamic terrorists to kill 3000 people on 9/11. As Trump's Border Czar Tom Homan and other DHS officials starkly pointed out, even if only .02% of the estimated 15-20 million illegal aliens (not migrants) are dedicated suicidal jihadists, like Mohammed Atta and his 9/11 compadres.  This would still leave several thousand Islamic terrorists ready to strike our homeland, as well as the EU. The Trump administration is deeply cognizant of the various terror cells, both foreign and “homegrown,” that mean us great harm. Trump's support of the work of those brave men and women of ICE stands in stark contrast to the suicidal political theatre orchestrated by Hakeem Jeffrey (D-NY), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Rashida Tlaib(D-MI), and others.  Politics does not end at our shoreline for most Democrats.

The current dismantling after 47 years of the Islamic Terrorist State of Iran must be accomplished. Notwithstanding obtuseness, if not simplemindedness, politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jeffreys, Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
Some of their comments, as elected officials, in particular Hakeem Jeffries, border on sedition, especially after he openly cheered for the United States Armed Forces to lose in Iran.  Trump, like many down-to-earth Americans, knows who and what poses the most existential threat to the United States as well as Western civilization.

   While many within our political class (mostly Liberal Progressive Democrats) worry about Transgender rights, especially as it pertains to giving creepy dudes access to women’s locker rooms. They’re also bullish on a woman’s right to choose, aka abortion, banning plastic straws, the proper use of pronouns, and the fraud of climate change. Monsters are roaming the nations, planning to kill us.  Once again, all Americans need to remember that it only took 19 the last time.

By Eric M. Wallace, PhD

A recent article in The Christian Post highlights comments by Texas state representative James Talarico, the recent Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, who claims that abortion and same-sex marriage are not mentioned in the Bible and therefore should not be treated as defining moral issues for Christians. His argument rests on a familiar refrain: Jesus never talked about these things, and therefore the Church should focus instead on kindness, inclusion, and social concern.

This argument may sound compassionate. It may even sound biblical. But it is neither faithful to Scripture nor honest about how Christian doctrine has always been formed.

To say “the Bible never mentions abortion or gay marriage” is technically true in the most superficial sense—and deeply misleading in every meaningful sense. Scripture does not mention pornography, human trafficking, or racial chattel slavery by modern name, either. Yet no serious Christian would argue that the Bible has nothing to say about sexual immorality, the exploitation of human beings, or the sanctity of life.

This is not how the Church has ever read Scripture.

A Bible Reduced to Sound Bites
The deeper problem with Talarico’s claim is not political—it is theological. It reflects a modern reduction of biblical authority to explicit quotations rather than to the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). Scripture does not function as a topical index in which moral truth exists only if a 21st-century term appears verbatim on the page.

The Bible presents a comprehensive moral vision rooted in creation, covenant, and Christ. Human life is sacred because it bears the image of God (Genesis 1:27). God knows the unborn personally and purposefully (Psalm 139:13–16; Jeremiah 1:5). Marriage is not a social construct but a creational ordinance—one man and one woman joined by God Himself (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4–6). Sexual ethics are consistently framed within that covenantal boundary throughout both Testaments.

Jesus did not undo these truths. He affirmed them.

The Misuse of Jesus’ Silence
Appealing to Jesus’ silence on a topic, such as moral permission, is a dangerous hermeneutic. Jesus also never explicitly condemned bestiality, incest, or child sacrifice in recorded red-letter text—but only because those sins were already clearly addressed in the Law He came to fulfill, not abolish (Matthew 5:17).

When Jesus spoke about marriage, He did not broaden its definition—He narrowed it back to God’s original design. When He spoke of the law, He intensified its moral demands, exposing not just outward actions but the condition of the heart (Matthew 5–7). When He spoke of love, it was never detached from obedience: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15, ESV).

Christian compassion divorced from biblical truth is not love—it is sentimentality.

A Familiar Drift
What we are witnessing in arguments like Talarico’s is not theological clarity but cultural accommodation. It is the same drift I describe in The Heart of Apostasy: the slow replacement of biblical authority with political ideology, therapeutic language, and selective proof-texting.

The Black Church, in particular, has been vulnerable to this error—confusing justice with justice-sounding rhetoric, and mercy with moral silence. When pastors and politicians tell believers that Scripture is “unclear” on matters God has plainly revealed, the result is not unity but confusion, not discipleship but division.

Jesus did care for the poor. He did welcome sinners. But He never affirmed sin, redefined God’s design, or treated moral truth as optional. He called people to repentance, and repentance always presupposes that something is wrong. It also requires a change of behavior.

The Question Before the Church
The real question is not whether the Bible contains modern political vocabulary. The question is whether the Church still believes Scripture has the authority to define right and wrong—even when that truth is unpopular, costly, or politically inconvenient.

If we only preach the parts of Jesus’ teaching that align with cultural expectations, we are no longer following Christ—we are reshaping Him.

And that is not Christianity. That is apostasy.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Kendall Qualls

As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States, we need to confront two questions that make liberals and the Left uncomfortable: What does it truly mean to be an American, and why have black Americans been discouraged from fully embracing that identity?

For generations, black Americans understood themselves plainly. They were Americans. Their struggle was not to separate from the nation, but to claim it. The Civil Rights Movement did not reject America; it appealed to its founding principles and demanded that the nation live up to the promises made in the Constitution and first articulated in the Declaration of Independence.

Martin Luther King Jr. captured this vision when he spoke of a nation where his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. That dream assumed character would be formed within families and reinforced by faith, discipline, and responsibility. Strong families were not secondary to progress; they were essential to it.

The previous generations that were not indoctrinated by the post-1960s radical leftist agenda make one thing clear: black Americans did not endure hardship because they rejected America. They endured it because they believed in it strongly enough to demand better.

Over time, however, the story shifted.

In the late twentieth century, black Americans were increasingly encouraged to adopt a hyphenated identity rather than simply being American. This change did not arise organically from lived experience or historical necessity. It was advanced by political activists who emphasized global racial identity over national allegiance.

But what exactly is an “African American”? Africa is not a nation. It is a continent of 54 countries, many of which have been divided by centuries of bloody conflict.

For most black Americans, Africa is not a place they can trace lineage to or claim citizenship in. Their ancestors were born here, labored here, fought here, and helped build this country. Rooting identity in a continent rather than in the Constitution detached black Americans from an American birthright earned through generations of sacrifice.

Hyphenating identity did not elevate black Americans. It weakened citizenship and diluted historical birthrights.

Citizenship implies ownership and responsibility. It declares, “This country is yours, and you are part of this country.” When identity becomes abstract rather than national, accountability erodes. When people are taught to see America as something separate from themselves, the incentive to build and protect institutions—family, marriage, faith, businesses, and community—declines.

This shift has had consequences.

As leftist identity politics expanded, family stability declined. Father absence increased. Faith receded. Dependency on government and political leaders replaced self-determination. What once happened inside the home—character formation and moral grounding—was increasingly outsourced to systems that could never replace it.

The results are visible across the country: generational poverty, struggling schools, unsafe neighborhoods, and cycles of incarceration. These are not merely economic failures; they have become embedded in a generational culture—and it was intentional.

A people taught that they do not fully belong will eventually stop acting as though they do. They may come to oppose the very nation that offers greater opportunity for freedom, wealth, and security than any other country in the world, including those on the African continent.

American history is complex. Slavery was real and evil, and it must never be minimized. But black Americans were never outsiders to the American project. They were participants from the beginning, serving, building, and sacrificing for a country they claimed as their own.

The Black History Month that ended a few days ago should not reinforce separation or grievance. It should remind black Americans of their deep roots in this nation and their rightful claim to its future.

There is nothing empowering about surrendering an American birthright for a global identity with no legal or historical grounding. There is nothing liberating about teaching children that the country they were born into is not truly theirs.

Black Americans are not guests in this nation. They are not hyphenated citizens. They are Americans, by birthright, by sacrifice, and by contribution.

As the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, Black History Month should be a moment of reclamation: of citizenship, responsibility, faith, family, and confidence in the American promise.

Progress has never been given; it has always been built. And it always begins at home.

Kendall Qualls is an Army Veteran, retired executive from the healthcare industry and candidate for Governor of Minnesota. He also serves on the Board of Trustees at Crown College and Board of Advisors for the National Medal of Honor Leadership Center. He is the founder of Take Charge, which promotes strong families, education, and free enterprise as the means to prosperity.

Mr. Qualls has authored a book, The Prodigal Project: Hope for American Families. His message has reached millions of people as a speaker and through his articles published in the New York Post, Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Federalist, Real Clear Politics, The Christian Post, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune. His previous articles in the Journal of FBT include “The Scandal Hidden in Plain Sight,” “Resurrect the Family,” “A Movement for Revival and Restoration,” “Amazing Grace,” “The Cincinnati Beat-Down,” “Charlie Kirk’s Message Transcended Ethnic and Political Boundaries,” and “We Must Return to the Classical Black American Tradition.” He has appeared on the FBT Podcast with host Connie Morgan in an episode titled “Bucking the Narrative.” A previous version of this article appeared here.

By Eric M. Wallace, PhD

As the nation reflects on the passing of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., it is clear that we are marking the end of a significant chapter in American public life. For decades, Rev. Jackson stood as one of the most recognizable voices emerging from the civil rights movement that reshaped the moral and political landscape of our country.

As a young protégé of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Jackson helped carry forward the movement’s call for justice, opportunity, and dignity for Black Americans. In the years that followed, he became a national political figure, a presidential candidate, and an advocate for those he believed were marginalized in American society. His ability to mobilize communities and bring attention to issues affecting Black Americans ensured that his voice would be heard in the highest levels of American political life.

It is understandable that leaders across the country — former presidents, business leaders, clergy, and activists — have gathered to pay tribute to his influence and his place in the nation’s history.

Moments like this invite us not only to reflect on a person’s public legacy, but also to reflect on the deeper spiritual questions that shape the life of the Church.

Like many Christians, I did not always agree with Rev. Jackson’s political vision. I also differed with aspects of the theological framework that often accompanied the political activism of the civil rights movement’s later generations. Over time, many leaders in the Black Church began to blend the language of the Gospel with political ideology in ways that created serious tension with historic biblical teaching.

Those concerns are not new. The Apostle Paul warned the early Church about the danger of allowing the message of Christ to be reshaped by competing ideas or cultural pressures. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul cautioned believers about those who might proclaim “another Jesus” or a different gospel than the one handed down by the apostles (2 Corinthians 11:4, ESV).

Every generation of Christians must wrestle with that warning. The Church must always ask whether its message is being shaped more by Scripture or by the political and cultural movements of the day.

Yet acknowledging those tensions does not require us to ignore the historical moment in which Rev. Jackson lived or the role he played in the public life of this nation. The civil rights movement emerged from real injustices that demanded moral courage and public witness. Many pastors and churches stood on the front lines of that struggle, believing they were living out the biblical call to pursue justice and defend human dignity.

Rev. Jackson was one of the most visible heirs of that tradition.

At the same time, the Church must continually return to its primary mission: proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ and forming disciples who live under the authority of God’s Word. Political influence may come and go, but the Church’s calling remains unchanged.

Scripture reminds us that every human being bears the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and that in Christ people from every tribe, nation, and language are brought together as one family (Galatians 3:28; Revelation 7:9). Racism, tribalism, and hatred have no place in the kingdom of God.

But neither should the Church allow the Gospel itself to be reduced to political activism or social ideology. The power of Christianity has never been rooted in political movements, but in the transforming work of Christ in the human heart.

That truth is especially important in a moment when the nation is once again wrestling with questions of race, identity, and justice.

The passing of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. reminds us that history is carried forward by flawed human beings — leaders who accomplish much, but who also leave behind complicated legacies. Christians should be able to acknowledge both realities with humility.

Ultimately, our hope does not rest in the legacy of any public figure. It rests in the person of Jesus Christ, who alone reconciles sinners to God and breaks down the dividing walls that separate people from one another (Ephesians 2:14–16).

As the nation remembers Rev. Jackson, perhaps the most meaningful tribute the Church can offer is not merely praise for the past, but renewed faithfulness to the Gospel that transcends every political movement and every generation.

In the end, that Gospel remains the only power capable of healing both the wounds of our history and the divisions of our present.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Eric M. Wallace, PhD

Recent reports about racist messages in a group chat involving young Republicans in Miami have sparked outrage across the political spectrum. If the reporting is accurate, the language described is reprehensible and should be condemned without hesitation.

Racism is not merely a political problem. It is a sin problem.

Scripture is clear: every human being is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27, ESV). To demean another person because of their race is to demean the Creator whose image they bear.

But Christians should not be surprised when sinful ideas appear in political movements. Human beings are fallen. Political parties are made up of sinners.

That is why our ultimate hope is not found in parties, platforms, or politicians. Our hope is found in Jesus Christ, the only one who can transform the human heart.

I am a Republican, but not because I believe the Republican Party is morally perfect. I am a Republican because the party’s platform more closely aligns with my biblical worldview than the alternatives currently available.

That platform affirms principles that resonate deeply with biblical teaching:

1. The sanctity of life
2. The importance of religious liberty
3. The central role of the family
4. Personal responsibility and economic opportunity

These principles are also reflected in what I call the R.I.S.E. Principles: Responsible Government, Individual Liberty and Fidelity, Strong Family Values, and Economic Empowerment.

But acknowledging the strengths of a platform does not mean ignoring the failures of the people who claim to represent it.

Let’s be honest: not everyone in the Republican Party shares a biblical worldview. There are Republicans who support abortion. There are Republicans who affirm same-sex marriage. And, if these reports are accurate, there are also individuals who harbor racist and antisemitic ideas.

Their views do not define the party platform.

But they do create a serious threat to the party’s credibility.

Racism is not just morally wrong; it is politically destructive. It undermines the Republican Party’s claim to stand for freedom, equality under the law, and opportunity for all.

And history reminds us that this struggle within the Republican Party is not new.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a faction known as the “Lily Whites” attempted to purge Black Americans from the Republican Party in the South. They sought to replace the multiracial coalition that had emerged during Reconstruction with a whites-only political movement.

They were wrong then, and anyone who embraces similar ideas today is wrong now.

The true history of the Republican Party is far more noble than the ideology of the Lily Whites.

It was the Republican Party that:

• Led the fight to end slavery
• Passed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery
• Passed the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection
• Passed the 15th Amendment protecting Black voting rights
• Advanced numerous civil rights laws throughout American history

Those achievements reflect the best impulses of the party: the conviction that freedom and human dignity belong to all people.

If individuals within the party promote racist ideas, they are not defending the Republican tradition. They are betraying it.

The correct response is not denial. Nor is it political opportunism from opponents who pretend racism exists only on one side of the aisle.

The correct response is moral clarity.

Republican leaders should publicly condemn racist ideology, remove those who promote it from positions of influence, and reaffirm the party’s historic commitment to liberty and equality under the law.

At the same time, Christians must remember that racism cannot be legislated out of existence.

It must be repented of.

Political reform is important, but spiritual renewal is essential. Only the transforming power of the Gospel can change the human heart.

That is why the ultimate solution to racism is not found in ideology, activism, or party politics.

It is found in the words of the Apostle Paul:
“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave7 nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
— Galatians 3:25–28 (ESV)

The Republican Party, like every human institution, will always be imperfect.

But if it hopes to remain faithful to its best traditions—and worthy of the trust of a diverse nation—it must reject racism unequivocally and stand firmly for the dignity of every person created in the image of God.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Eric M. Wallace, PhD

Behind this geopolitical struggle lies a deeper reality: this is not merely a contest between nations, but a spiritual battle with eternal implications. Scripture reminds us, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness” (Ephesians 6:12, ESV). The ideologies confronting the West—radical Islamism and cultural Marxism—are not merely political systems. They are rival faiths with comprehensive moral claims.

The Judeo-Christian worldview undergirded the legal, moral, and cultural architecture of Western society. It upheld the sanctity of life (Genesis 1:27), the integrity of the family (Genesis 2:24), personal responsibility (2 Thessalonians 3:10), and ordered liberty under God (Psalm 33:12). These foundations are now under sustained assault—not only from external enemies, but from internal decay.

The tragedy is that the Church has not merely been silent; it has often been complicit. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6, ESV). For decades, Christians have supported politicians and public policies that weakened the family, undermined moral formation, and expanded government dependency at the expense of covenantal responsibility. In doing so, we hollowed out the very institutions—family and church—that once served as the first line of defense against social collapse.

We funded our own undoing.

Foreign aid without accountability has financed regimes hostile to Western values. Domestic welfare policies, detached from moral formation, displaced fathers and eroded marriage. Open-border ideologies imported conflicts we were unprepared to confront. Yet Scripture warns, “When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2, ESV).

Now, as the United States moves to correct course—securing borders, confronting hostile regimes, reclaiming strategic territory—the Church finds itself unprepared to interpret the moment. Many pastors speak fluently about compassion but remain silent about order, justice, and truth. They confuse mercy with moral neutrality and hospitality with surrender. But true mercy is never detached from truth (John 1:14), and righteousness exalts a nation (Proverbs 14:34, ESV).

This is not a call to blind nationalism. It is a call to spiritual clarity. Nations are judged not only by power, but by righteousness (Micah 6:8). Strategic brilliance without moral renewal will fail. Yet moral renewal without strategic wisdom leaves a people vulnerable.

The question before the Church is unavoidable: will we awaken to the spiritual stakes of this moment, or will we continue to outsource moral responsibility to the state while criticizing the consequences?

“Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you” (Ephesians 5:14, ESV).

The geopolitical chessboard is shifting. The spiritual war is intensifying. History will record whether the Church discerned the hour—or slept through it.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Eric M. Wallace, PhD

What many Americans are witnessing today is not a series of random or impulsive policy decisions, but a coordinated geopolitical strategy unfolding across multiple fronts. When viewed together—the mass deportation of illegal aliens, the arrest of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, renewed pressure toward the liberation of Venezuela, the military action in Iran, and even renewed interest in Greenland—these moves suggest a deliberate effort to regain strategic ground that the West has steadily surrendered over the last several decades.

At the center of this effort is the reassertion of sovereignty. A nation that cannot control its borders cannot control its future. Deportation is often discussed solely in humanitarian or economic terms, but it also carries profound national security implications. Since 9/11, U.S. immigration law has explicitly been tied to counterterrorism and homeland defense. Federal agencies have long warned that porous borders are exploited not only by criminal organizations but also by hostile foreign actors and terror networks.

Recent large-scale deportation efforts must therefore be understood as more than administrative enforcement. They function as a strategic disruption of potential terror cells embedded within the United States—cells that could be activated in retaliation should military conflict escalate with Iran or other hostile regimes. Immigration enforcement, in this sense, is preemptive defense. It is a move designed to neutralize internal vulnerabilities before external conflict intensifies.

This domestic enforcement aligns with bold foreign policy actions. The arrest of Nicolás Maduro—long accused of presiding over a narco-state aligned with Marxist ideology—represents a direct challenge to communist influence in the Western Hemisphere. Venezuela is not merely a failed state; it is a resource-rich nation whose collapse has destabilized the region and fueled mass migration. Removing its leadership is not just political theater—it is a strategic strike against authoritarian power structures hostile to Western interests.

Meanwhile, confrontation with Iran exposes the heart of a global ideological struggle. Iran is not simply a regional power; it is the central financier and coordinator of Islamist proxy movements committed to the destruction of Israel and the destabilization of the West. Military action against Iran is therefore not an isolated event—it is a confrontation with a worldview fundamentally opposed to the moral and political order that has sustained Western civilization.

Even the renewed discussion surrounding Greenland must be seen through this lens. Control of territory, access to rare earth minerals, energy resources, and strategic military positioning in the Arctic are no longer speculative concerns. Russia and China understand this well. Western hesitation has only emboldened them. Reasserting influence in these regions is about preparing for the next phase of global competition.

Taken together, these actions reveal a chess game being played several moves ahead. Borders, energy, migration, military assets, and ideological influence are all pieces on the board. What appears chaotic to the uninformed observer reveals coherence to those willing to connect the dots.

But geopolitics alone does not tell the full story.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

[This op-ed is taken from the last excursus from my book The Heart of Apostasy}

While making the final edits to this book, a link to a new documentary—Black + Evangelical—flashed across my screen.¹ The film is a joint project of Christianity Today and Wheaton College, two institutions that have become synonymous in recent years with what many now refer to as “woke evangelicalism.” I was doubly intrigued when I recognized the moderator, Dr. Vincent Bacote, a Black theologian at Wheaton whom I had met before. Surely, I thought, the documentary would intersect with the very argument of this book: that the Black church is being lured away from a kingdom identity and toward a racial one.
So my wife and I sat down and watched.

What we saw only clarified the audience I have been writing for. The Heart of Apostasy is aimed squarely at Black evangelicals who have begun to prioritize racial solidarity over fidelity to the Gospel. The premise of Black + Evangelical is simple: White evangelicals have remained scandalously silent about race and justice, and that silence is tantamount to complicity. In other words, if White believers do not adopt the vocabulary of Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory, and the politics of grievance, they cannot be trusted as brothers or sisters in Christ.

The documentary opens with audio of Tom Skinner’s electrifying sermons from the late 1960s. Skinner charged that White evangelicals expected Black believers to downplay their “Blackness.” His question—“How can we ignore part of our heritage?”—still resonates. But what exactly does “Blackness” mean? In the turmoil of the civil-rights era, when the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers were vying for influence, “Blackness” acquired a distinctly political cast. That cast remains.

Skinner went further, declaring that we needed some young Black ministers who loved the Gospel—and Black people—so much that they would be “willing to go to hell” if it meant their Black people's salvation. As memorable as the line is, it bends theologically, suggesting a trade-off between ethnic loyalty and eternal Truth that the New Testament never entertains.

I met Tom Skinner once, decades ago, through my stepfather. We ate lunch, then drove to Evangel Temple, where he brought down the roof. He was a master communicator, and I cherish that brief encounter. I also know some elders celebrated in the film—men such as Elders Rollerson, Yates, and Banks of Westlawn Gospel Chapel—and I worked for Dr. Melvin Banks at Urban Ministries. In that sense, the documentary features “my people.” Yet, I was startled by how uncritically it rehearses the standard social-justice script.

Skinner claimed that the entire evangelical church supported slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. Yes, some churches and denominations did; however, others opposed them at great cost. Reducing so complex a history to a single indictment plays into the hands of modern grievance merchants who weaponize the past to shame White believers and inflame Black anger—even though the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act formally dismantled the legal apparatus of White supremacy.

The film’s solution is “racial reconciliation,” but it never defines the term. Who decides what reconciliation looks like? How much contrition is enough? And why does it assume that racism—not sin in all its forms—is the church’s central problem? By the documentary’s logic, White evangelicals must first confess their complicity, then endorse a specific brand of activism, and only then can we “walk together.” Anything less is proof of bigotry.

Throughout the film, Black pride is applauded, systemic racism is asserted rather than demonstrated, and representation is treated as the highest good. At one time, institutions were racist because they had no Black faces; now they are racist because they have too few. This is the moving target of cultural Marxism: the rules keep changing, but the grievance remains.

The same spirit coursed through the Church in the 1960s and is coursing again today under the banners of CRT and intersectionality. Instead of uniting the body of Christ, these theories fracture it, elevating ethnic identity over kingdom citizenship. Skinner correctly said, “Jesus did not come to take sides but to take over.” Yet he erred when he insisted that any Gospel that doesn’t address socioeconomic inequality “is not the Gospel.” Luke 4 does speak of good news to the poor, liberty to captives, and sight for the blind; however, the liberation Jesus offers begins at the Cross, not in Congress. The Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6) calls disciples to generosity, mercy, and forgiveness, not to perpetual lament.

Fast-forward to today. Near the film’s conclusion, Dr. Nicole Martin—now COO of Christianity Today—urges evangelicals to “name the pain” of racism publicly so that healing can begin. Another contributor calls for a move “from color-blindness to color-consciousness,” pressing Whites to step into Black experience and act as allies. Dr. Joy Moore, president of Northern Seminary, acknowledges her own elevation yet insists “the battle is not over.” Dr. Vanessa Quianoo of Wheaton concludes, “This is our season to reclaim evangelicalism.”

But if racism explains everything, how do we account for their remarkable influence inside purportedly racist structures? Racism is real, but it is also a sin common to every culture—German, Japanese, African, and American. It cannot be eradicated by new policies or by endless public apologies. The Cross, not critical theory, is God’s remedy.

As Dr. Voddie Baucham warns in Fault Lines, CRT presupposes that racism is “ingrained in the fabric and system of American society”² and needs no individual racist to exist. Under such a framework, reconciliation becomes impossible because guilt is permanent, and repentance is never enough.

So, what is the way forward? Near the end of the documentary, Dr. Walter McCray comes closest to the truth: “God will break down the dividing wall when Blacks live out our sacred identity in Him.” Precisely. The Gospel calls every believer—Black and White—to lay down lesser loyalties at the foot of the cross and to rise as one new humanity in Christ.
That, and nothing less, is the heart of the matter. It is a matter of the heart.


1.  https://pages.christianitytoday.com/black-evangelicals-documentary-lp

2. Voddie Baucham, Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe, (Washington D.C.: Salem Books, 2021) p.VX. Voddie quotes from “What is Critical Race Theory?” UCLA School of Public Affairs, Critical Race Studies, http://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is-critical-race-theory.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It, is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Patrick Hall

"Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of knowing what not to believe.”
                                 Euripides

We should have learned that lesson in the 1960s, with the Great Society Programs and the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act, which gave rise to Community Services Block Grants. These were all authored during the Johnson Administration. These Programs were at the heart of the so-called War on Poverty, which saw billions of dollars administered by the Federal government to help the poor and downtrodden. Negroes/Blacks/African Americans were especially targeted in receiving the so-called benefits of these programs. It was a valiant attempt by the Feds to uplift the many within the Negro Community because of past discriminatory practices that hamstrung many Blacks or People of Color.  At the local level, many of these programs were plagued by mismanagement, fraud, and outright theft of millions of taxpayers' dollars.

 To put this in perspective, sixty-one years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society Programs launched the War on Poverty. Since then, taxpayers have spent more than $22 trillion fighting Johnson’s war. This was three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history. Last year alone, taxpayers spent more than $970 billion on 87 different anti-poverty programs.

Despite this spending, the percentage of Americans living in poverty has remained relatively unchanged since the late 1960s. President Reagan once quipped that well-meaning individuals (both Democrats and Republicans) declared war on poverty, “and poverty won.”

 Once more, a good portion of monies allocated to help the poor and specifically Black Americans, what the left calls “People of Color, “ just got stolen or badly mismanaged. The Community Service Block Grants (CSBG), which gave rise to Community Action Programs (CAP), were the most controversial component of the Great Society Programs. They proposed "maximum feasible participation" by poor people themselves to determine what would help them the most. Of course, in the succeeding decades, this would open the gates to a great deal of fraud and outright theft of these Federal funds, i.e., < taxpayers' dollars>. CAP represented a radical departure from the government’s traditional approach to running most social reform programs.

Some sad but typical examples

Black folks, along with a lot of white administrators, were able to steal and/or mismanage so much of the funding back in the late 1960s and beyond. CSBG, as well as CAP, were often the vehicle employed to garnish Federal funds and use them for questionable “make-work-programs, no-show-jobs, and dubious minority youth work programs. In upstate New York, in places like Rochester and Buffalo, Action for a Better Community Programs (ABC) were perhaps the most dreadfully mismanaged. In Buffalo, a youth work program employed Black youth to clean up vacant lots in the inner city.  Over fifty years ago, as a young, idealistic college student, I was assigned, along with two others, to “supervise” work groups of 15 to 20 teenagers, mostly Black, in cleaning up the garbage in these vacant lots. At the beginning of the summer, things went ok. However, by the second or third week, most black youth didn’t show up for their work assignments.

 However, what they showed up for every Friday was to collect a paycheck for jobs they hadn’t performed. This went on for the rest of the summer. Complaints filed with the Directors or urban site supervisors were basically ignored. It went on this way until the end of summer.  My naïve and idealistic college-student colleagues and I knew what the score was. Very few of us ever worked in these youth work programs again.

 Here is a tragic sidebar.  I was told by more than one Urban site supervisor that these black youth came from poor families, and it was “ok” for them to show up and collect a check. I kid you not!

In my hometown of Rochester, New York, many of the urban youth work programs were equally suspect. Monies and work opportunities were being wasted.  Tragically, all those hundreds, if not thousands of Black youths learned nothing regarding good work habits and taking responsibility for themselves and their communities.

 And no! It is not racist to point this out, as many Progressive Liberals want to shame or intimidate many into believing.  Too many Democrats, as well as many Conservative Americans, allow themselves to be trapped in the “racial/ethnic guilt cul-de-sac,” which teaches them the dodgy if not questionable lesson of “Kill and/or abuse me, but please don’t call me a Racist!”  

 What some Somalis have Learned

Kayseh Magan, an investigator in the Medicaid Fraud Division of the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, and a Somali-American himself, once opined in an unguarded moment that members of his community must cease leveraging race and religion to avoid accountability. By now, most Americans have heard or read about the massive amount of outright fraud perpetrated by over 70 community services programs operated by Somali officials in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Here is a sidenote! The same phenomena have been observed among Somali communities in both the UK and the EU.

As a quick overview, over $9 billion in taxpayer dollars were stolen or defrauded by Somalis in various social services scams.

 Somali Fraud #1.

During the Covid-era between $250-$300 million was stolen by 75 Somali defendants. It all revolved around a nonprofit group or program called “Feeding Our Future (FOF). FOF claimed work with restaurants and/or catering services to distribute meals to schools and nursing homes throughout the Minneapolis area. For several years, FOF submitted fraudulent meals and invoices, defrauding federal officials and taxpayers.

Somali Fraud #2

Beginning in early Fall and accelerating over the New Year's holiday, a fraudulent housing program was discovered.  So far, over a dozen people have been charged with submitting millions of dollars' worth of fraudulent or inflated bills to the Federal Government.  According to Federal prosecutors, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and other housing-stabilization programs were susceptible to fraud because they lowered barriers to entry, thereby favoring Somalis, who had few record-keeping requirements. Prosecutors note that spending on housing programs ballooned from $2.6 million to $100 million in less than three years. At the time of this writing, at least a dozen Somalis, including two Pennsylvanians with no clear connection to Minnesota, allegedly traveled in what Prosecuting attorneys described as “fraud tourism.”

Somali Fraud #3

Since early 2025, several Somalians have been charged with stealing state/Federal monies designated to provide services to children with autism. Defendants were accused of hiring “unqualified behavioral experts,” submitting false claims to the state that indicated they worked with autistic children. Prosecutors also said that payments ranging from $ 1,100 to $ 1,500 were made to thousands of persons (not verified).  One autism services defendant, Asha Farhan Hassan, and staff were also charged with running a fake food distribution site.
Joseph H. Thompson, United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, said the autism services fraud cases were not isolated schemes. So far, at least 14 Medicaid services are under audit that were previously deemed “high risk for fraud.”

Somali Fraud #4

Nick Shirley, an independent investigator and YouTuber, drew over ten million viewers in late 2025. His reporting or videos showed him visiting federally supported child care centers in Minneapolis and finding no children present. He pointed out that more than a dozen day care centers were not providing any services. These Somali owners had been pocketing the Federal funding/taxpayers' money for years. Currently, the United States Department of Health and Human Services has frozen roughly $185 million in taxpayers' support for child care.  An important aspect of the Somali Daycare case is that the defendants spent taxpayer funds on cars, property, and luxury travel. The FBI, along with the DOJ, also shows that millions of stolen funds were wired to banks and companies in China. As noted by several members of the International Trade Commission, tracing or locating all funds stolen money attributable to the CCP is an investigative “black hole.” Somali defendants also transferred nearly $4 million to accounts in Kenya as well as a questionable banking institution in Somalia, which, according to officials at both the CIA and the Department of War, has close relations to al Qaeda-affiliated al-Shabaab.  The United States Department of War has for years designated al-Shabaab a foreign terrorist militia based in Somalia.

Have we been Omar(ed) ?

I imagine one can also pose the question, have we been Sharpton(ed), Waters(ed), or even Benjamin Crump(ed) again? This time, by Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who represents the 5th congressional district, which is predominantly Somali. The Congresswoman did not hesitate to employ the race card with accusations of racism against anyone who dared point out the outright theft and fraud perpetrated by members of her Somali community, as illustrated in the preceding paragraphs. It is a lesson that race hustlers like the Rev Al Sharpton never fail to accuse their opposition when or where there are some horrific examples of maleficence and/or criminal activity committed by so-called “People of Color”.

All “People of Color”, including WHITE PEOPLE, can commit fraud, stealing, murder, whatever, because we are all, or can be, “sinful creatures " at times.   I was raised a Roman Catholic, and in the famous prayer, the Hail Mary, there is the line, or act of contrition if you will, which states, “Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us SINNERS, now and at the hour of our death, Amen.”   So please, everyone like Congresswoman Omar, Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Hakeem Jeffries, Maxine Waters, or Rashida Tlaib(D-MI) quit hurling the race-card BS for a change; and begin addressing the real problems endemic to their constituencies, that have little to nothing to do with race.  

I have an idea!! Maybe Congresswoman Omar can hold a financial investment seminar for some of her constituents on how to increase their net worth from $ 174,000 a year to $30 million in less than six years.  You go, girl!

Patrick Hall is a retired University Library Director. He graduated from Canisius College and the University of Washington, where he earned Masters Degrees in Religious Studies Education, Urban Anthropology, and Library and Information Science.  Mr. Hall has also completed additional coursework at the University of Buffalo, Seattle University, and St. John Fishers College of Rochester, New York. He has been published in several national publications such as Commonweal, America, Conservative Review, Headway, National Catholic Reporter, Freedom's Journal Magazine, and American Libraries. He has published in peer-reviewed publications, the Journal of Academic Librarianship, and the Internet Reference Services Quarterly. From 1997 until his retirement in January 2014, he served on the Advisory Board of Urban Library Journal, a CUNY Publication.

By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

When President James Monroe articulated his 1823 doctrine, he sought to protect a fragile hemisphere from European imperial ambitions. Back then the threat was distant — naval fleets and colonial powers across the Atlantic. Today, the threat is closer, more complex, and more insidious: transnational criminal networks, hostile foreign states, and global adversaries seeking footholds on America’s doorstep.

For too long, critics treated the Monroe Doctrine as a relic of 19th-century geopolitics — a symbol of outdated hemispheric paternalism. But recent policy developments remind us that geography still matters, and that the security of the United States is bound up with the stability of the Western Hemisphere.

In late 2025, the U.S. government formally revived the Monroe Doctrine — not as mere nostalgia, but as a cornerstone of our national security strategy, complete with what some analysts now call a “Trump Corollary.” This updated doctrine explicitly prioritizes the Western Hemisphere and rejects external interference by powers hostile to our interests, such as China, Russia, and Iran.¹

Why does this matter? Because the threats we face today are not abstract. They are real, proximate, and often lethal:

• Drug Trafficking and Narco-Terrorism. Cartels and criminal syndicates that operate out of Venezuela and other unstable states export violence, fentanyl, and misery into the United States. These are not traditional armies; they are hybrid threats that degrade our communities, overwhelm our healthcare systems, and fund corruption on both sides of the border.
• Hostile Influence by Foreign Powers.
 Nations such as China and Russia — while not colonial empires in the classical sense — have increased their presence in Latin America through infrastructure investment, political alliances, and diplomatic outreach. To ignore this is to cede influence in what the 1823 doctrine defined as America’s sphere of security.²
• Terrorist Nexus and Hybrid Threats.
 Iran and proxy groups are active in the region through aligned governments and networks, challenging U.S. interests in ways Monroe could scarcely have imagined but would have recognized as hostile intervention.³

Times have changed since Monroe’s address. The global system is no longer composed of rival European empires maneuvering for colonial advantage. Instead, non-state actors, extremist networks, and revisionist states use asymmetrical tools — cyber warfare, criminal syndicates, corruption, and economic coercion — to advance agendas hostile to American security and values.

This is precisely where a modern Monroe Doctrine has relevance.

Critics say the doctrine promotes interventionism. To that, we must respond: national sovereignty is a bedrock principle — until a state’s actions directly threaten our own sovereignty and national security. No doctrine should license unilateral conquest or occupation. But a doctrine that signals the U.S. will counter foreign influence and transnational threats in its hemisphere is not imperialism — it is strategic defense in an anarchic world where adversaries exploit every weak link.

Look at how foreign powers operate today: China’s Belt and Road investments, Russia’s military and political meddling, Iran’s alliances with armed groups — all reflect long-term strategies to project power. These are not benign economic ties or cultural exchanges; they are geopolitical maneuvers with real-world consequences for U.S. security.⁴

A robust Monroe Doctrine 2.0 — endorsed by conservative voices from Capitol Hill to the Pentagon — should therefore prioritize the defense of our hemisphere without recklessly violating international law. It should champion:

• Strengthened regional security partnerships
• Expanded intelligence cooperation to combat drug and human trafficking
• Economic partnerships that offer alternatives to adversarial influence
• Clear deterrence against hostile state actors in proximity to the U.S. border

Senator Jim Risch has noted that failing to uphold the Monroe Doctrine enabled adversaries to endanger the peace and safety of the United States, arguing that threats from China, Russia, and Iran today are not fundamentally different from the European imperial threats of the 19th century.⁵

Opponents may decry any hemispheric focus as “imperialism.” But there is a difference between defending one’s own neighborhood and dominating it. The original doctrine spoke of external intervention being hostile; it did not license wanton interference by the United States. Our modern interpretation should likewise signal resolve — not aggression — to secure the hemisphere against foreign powers that would use it as a base to undermine American security.

In an era where supply chains, energy resources, migration, and transnational crime intersect with national defense, a revitalized Monroe Doctrine is not a throwback — it is a necessary strategy for the 21st century. By engaging our neighbors, countering hostile influence, and preventing transnational threats from taking root within our hemisphere, we honor the original spirit of the doctrine while adapting it to the realities of a changed world.
The Western Hemisphere may no longer face European battleships, but it faces other, equally dangerous vectors of influence. It would be irresponsible for the United States to ignore them.
_______________
1. Council on Foreign Relations 
2. DPAM Investments 
3. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 
4. Wikipedia 
5. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It,  is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Patrick Hall

It was the late social scientist and politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan who coined the phrase “defining deviancy down.” It described the tendency or comportment of societies, people, or individuals to respond to destructive behaviors or beliefs by lowering or changing the standard for what is permissible.

Nowhere is this slide into cultural-political relativism more apparent as it has manifested itself in a significant portion of the African American community.

 It has been especially damaging to a large segment of the community, who engage in abhorrent and/or criminal behavior that was not the norm in Pre-Civil Rights America. For example, Blacks who are only 13% of the United States population commit over 50% of all homicides. Other major criminal activities have witnessed a similar disproportionality in the rate of anti-social behavior.  The rate of violence and cultural anomie has increased sharply at the very time that blacks don’t live with blatant discrimination as in pre-Civil Rights America.   Yet far too many within the black polity, as well as the greater Democratic Party, have insisted that racism and other systemic discriminatory practices are still omnipresent. They’re just more hidden and apocryphal in 2025. The NAACP, National Action Network (NAN), and monies provided by the George Soros Foundation, Liberal Progressive NGOs, as well as the CCP and the Muslim Brotherhood, have all engaged in Post-Civil Rights America to keep racism alive at all costs, even if it means “defining racism up.” It is the hidden corollary, juxtaposed with Moynihan’s defining deviancy down.  

Race hustlers, Poverty entrepreneurs, as well as some amoral and just plain stupid individuals, who define many within the Congressional Black Caucus, the Democratic Party, and hundreds of colleges and universities, hone their racism fighting credentials by “not acknowledging” that America isn’t the country that my parents, born in 1908 and 1910, had to negotiate.

Even in my short 75 years on this earth, race is not what holds many within the African American community from taking full advantage of the opportunities, “not guarantees,” that are in plain sight.  It is the attitude, once again, to keep perceptions of racism and discriminatory behavior alive, while it’s basically on life support. To paraphrase the late economist Walter Williams, looking for signs and/or incidents of racism is like looking for your lost wallet under a street lamp, even though you lost it elsewhere, because the light is better there.

To reiterate, many within the Progressive polity that are the so-called representatives of Black people are constantly “Defining Racism UP”.   It makes their job or hustle, that is, keeping the specter of Jim Crow America or blatant racism alive, much easier, though it isn’t terribly relevant to the problems that we face as Americans.

In retrospect, Moynihan was right. But it is only half the story. Once again, the dodgy project is to define deviance, in the case of systemic racism, “up.”

Here is the nature of this insidious secular dogma. As part of the vast social project of moral leveling, it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized. The normal must be found to be deviant. The bar defining normality, for example, “what is and is not racism”, has been pushed upward.  And I mean bigtime!

Socio-Political Heresy of Disparate Impact

From its murky beginning as part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, “ Disparate Impact, the law launched under Title VII, was from its inception “a heads we win, tails we win” for the guardians of the keep racism alive consortium.  Disparate impact under Title VII of the CRA refers to practices in employment, housing, education, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people with protected characteristics more than another, often due to deliberate or unintentional bias.  However, there is a fallacy or distortion in the Disparate Impact Heresy. An institution can still be sued or deemed discriminatory or racist, even though the rules applied by employers, landlords, or academic/school admissions are formally neutral. With such leeway, anyone or anything can be labeled racist.  To quote one actor in the film, Taps, as he is shooting indiscriminately at what he perceived as legitimate targets…”It's beautiful, man, it’s beautiful!”

The racism industrial complex now had all it needed to define Racism Up because of the open-ended and dangerous delusion of disparate impact.

To paraphrase Manhattan Institute public policy analyst Heather MacDonald, the largest falsehood or distortion in American public policy today is the idea or social construct that any disparity, racial or otherwise, in any institution is, by definition, discriminatory.  To quote Dr. Macdonald,” If a cancer research lab does not have 13% black oncologists, it is by definition a racist lab that discriminates against… black oncologists.  If airlines don’t have 13% of black pilots, they, according to the disparate impact dogma, are deemed intrinsically racist. Here is something even more stupid, if not dangerous.  If our prison population contains more than 13% black prisoners, our criminal justice system is racist, regardless of the statistical fact that blacks commit prison-worthy offences at a higher rate than most groups in the United States.  Consequently, in that case, the deficiency needs to be adjusted to fit the “cultural-political catechesis of relativism”, regardless of the consequences.

 In the case of black oncologists, it is endemic racist institutions or tests like the MCAT, and not the sad reality that many blacks don’t score very high on professional entrance tests like the MCAT or LSAT.  So, according to the Progressive Liberal mindset, we need to fix, alter, or eliminate the test, instead of addressing what is fouled up in black preparation in our nation's public high schools, K-12 education, and elsewhere. Racism is defined “up”, and standardized testing, from the SATs, GREs, LSATs, to the MCATs, became the problem.

African Americans' cultural-political leadership and their misguided, guilt-ridden Mea Culpa Progressive Democratic Liberals are at fault.  At the same time, they exacerbate and continue to divide us as Americans.  

All of us must proclaim that standards and positive cultural mores are not racist. They are not “acting white” as many calcified morons within the Black community continue to believe.  We all must strongly assert that categories like race, gender, or sexual preference are “never’ qualifications for employment.  Being an African American (and I prefer just American) is not an accomplishment!

 Nor shall one ever win the Nobel Peace Prize like former President Obama did, for basically being black.  I am equally certain that being gay, a woman, or even a non-binary transgender-two-spirited-female isn't an accomplishment. To quote Charlie Brown, “good grief!”

Patrick Hall is a retired University Library Director. He graduated from Canisius College and the University of Washington, where he earned Masters Degrees in Religious Studies Education, Urban Anthropology, and Library and Information Science.  Mr. Hall has also completed additional coursework at the University of Buffalo, Seattle University, and St. John Fishers College of Rochester, New York. He has been published in several national publications such as Commonweal, America, Conservative Review, Headway, National Catholic Reporter, Freedom's Journal Magazine, and American Libraries. He has published in peer-reviewed publications, the Journal of Academic Librarianship, and the Internet Reference Services Quarterly. From 1997 until his retirement in January 2014, he served on the Advisory Board of Urban Library Journal, a CUNY Publication.

By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

The Voting Rights Act Should Protect Voting—Not Perpetuate Fear
For more than half a century, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has stood as one of the most significant civil rights laws in American history. Its original purpose was noble, necessary, and urgent: to dismantle state-sponsored barriers that prevented Black Americans—especially in the South—from exercising their constitutional right to vote.

But not every provision of the Act was intended to be permanent. And today, some of those temporary provisions have been transformed into political weapons—used not to protect voting rights, but to frighten Black voters into believing that their freedom to vote hangs by a thread.

That fear narrative is false.

What the Voting Rights Act Actually Requires Reauthorization
Only certain sections of the Voting Rights Act ever required periodic reauthorization. These sections were designed as extraordinary, temporary remedies to address exceptional circumstances—namely, systemic, state-enforced racial disenfranchisement.

Among them:

• Section 5, which required certain states and localities—primarily in the South—to obtain federal “preclearance” before making changes to voting laws or procedures.
• Sections 4(f)(4) and 203 mandate that some jurisdictions provide voting materials in languages other than English.
• Sections 6 through 9 allow the federal government to send voting registrars and election observers into covered jurisdictions.

These provisions were not permanent constitutional fixtures. They were emergency measures, imposed under the assumption that the targeted jurisdictions could not be trusted to administer elections fairly on their own.

The key word is were.

What Has Changed—and Why It Matters

America has changed profoundly since 1965.

Black voter registration and turnout in the South now rival—and often exceed—that of other regions. Black elected officials serve at every level of government in states once accused of systematic exclusion. Federal law already prohibits racial discrimination in voting nationwide, with robust enforcement mechanisms still firmly in place.

Yet the reauthorization debate continues to be framed as if Jim Crow were waiting just outside the door.

It is not.

The continued enforcement of Section 5 and its companion provisions presumes that certain states remain uniquely racist and incapable of self-governance. That presumption is not only outdated—it is corrosive. It freezes history in amber and insists that progress never counts.

The Fear Narrative—and Who Benefits From It

Whenever reform or sunset of these provisions is discussed, familiar voices emerge to warn Black Americans that their right to vote is “under attack.” These claims are amplified by what I describe in my book as the race-baiting grievance industry—a coalition of activists, politicians, and organizations that profit from keeping racial fear alive.

The message is simple: without these federal restraints, the segregated South will rise again.

But this narrative depends on a troubling assumption—that Black Americans remain politically helpless without permanent federal guardianship. That idea is not empowering. It is patronizing.

And it is wrong.

Temporary Laws Should Not Become Permanent Shackles

The framers of the Voting Rights Act understood that emergency powers must be temporary. To make them permanent is to suggest that reconciliation, repentance, and reform are impossible—that certain regions of the country are forever guilty and forever suspect.

That is not justice. It is political theology masquerading as civil rights.

Ending or reforming these provisions does not eliminate protections against discrimination. It simply restores equal constitutional footing among the states and affirms that the era of legalized disenfranchisement has ended.

It Is Time to Tell the Truth

Black Americans do not need to be scared into voting. We do not need to be told that our citizenship is fragile or conditional. And we do not need archaic laws repurposed to sustain a narrative of perpetual White supremacy when the evidence no longer supports it.
The Voting Rights Act should remain what it was always meant to be: a shield against real injustice—not a tool for political manipulation.

It is time to retire provisions that have outlived their purpose and put to rest the myth that the segregated South is waiting to return.

History should be remembered—but it should not be weaponized.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It,  is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

The Chicago City Council recently passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and systemic racism. The vote drew headlines not because it passed — that was predictable — but because four aldermen declined to support it. Their refusal triggered outrage, with one Black council member reportedly shouting, “Shame on you!”

Before we join the chorus, a better question is needed: What problem does this apology actually solve?

No serious thinker denies the evil of slavery or the enduring stain of racism in American history. But apologies disconnected from reform become political theater — symbolic gestures that pacify consciences without transforming conditions. Chicago does not suffer today because of an absence of apologies. Chicago suffers because of decades of failed leadership and policies that have devastated the very communities these resolutions claim to uplift.

A City in Crisis Needs Substance, Not Slogans
If apologies could save a city, Chicago would be flourishing. Instead, thousands of Black children remain trapped in failing schools. Criminals roam neighborhoods under soft-on-crime policies that embolden lawlessness. Businesses flee excessive regulation, economic stagnation deepens, and families suffer the consequences.
City leaders want to apologize for slavery, yet refuse to repent of the policies that are crippling Black families today.

Government cannot balance a budget, protect citizens, educate children, or reduce violence — but somehow believes it can heal historical wounds through symbolic resolutions. The irony is painful.

History Matters — But So Do Present Choices
Slavery ended 160 years ago. Jim Crow died three generations back. No Chicagoan alive today has been enslaved; none has owned a slave. Yet too many politicians remain committed to relitigating past sins while refusing to confront present failures.

If we are serious about the historical record, then let’s tell it honestly: Chicago did not participate in chattel slavery. If the City Council wishes to apologize for discriminatory policies practiced after slavery, then say so clearly. But attaching municipal guilt to national slavery — and then using it to justify potential payouts — stretches moral logic beyond recognition.

Scripture teaches individual responsibility:

“The soul who sins shall die.” — Ezekiel 18:20
. We are accountable for our sins, not someone else’s.

A healthy society must reject the idea of inherited guilt and collective condemnation. A just society confronts its past without weaponizing it against the present.

The Real Injustice: A Broken Moral Culture
The greatest crisis facing Black Chicago today is not historical. It is moral and cultural.
Nearly 70% of Black children are born into single-parent households. Illiteracy rates are staggering. Violence consumes our streets. Drugs, despair, and delinquency are the predators of our neighborhoods — not the long-dead plantation owner.

If we are sober, we will acknowledge the true legacy that holds us back:
– Fatherless homes
– Failing schools
– Rampant crime
– Government dependency
– Churches unwilling to preach repentance and responsibility.

Politicians blame slavery because it requires no courage. Confronting the collapse of the family? That’s costly. Admitting decades of progressive policies have failed? Unthinkable.

For many, reparations are a substitute for repentance.

The Cost of Theatrics
Those who voted against the apology were scolded as though they were personally complicit in slavery. That kind of moral bullying reveals the true purpose of the resolution: not healing, but posturing.

Demanding apologies from people who did not commit the crime is not justice — it is ideological intimidation. It distracts from practical change.

What if instead of rehearsing history, we repaired homes?

What if instead of policing language, we protected families?

What if instead of demanding apologies, we demanded accountability?

Real justice is not measured in resolutions passed, but in families strengthened, children educated, and streets made safe.

From Apology to Action
If Chicago’s leaders genuinely care about “repair,” they should champion reforms proven to lift communities:

• School choice so every child — not just the wealthy — can flourish
• Restoring law and order in every neighborhood
• Economic opportunity led by entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats
• Strengthening the Black family, starting with fatherhood
• Promoting faith-based institutions that build virtue and character

These are the foundations of community flourishing. These are the real reparations.
I’ve described this framework as the R.I.S.E. Principles:
Responsible Government, Individual Liberty and Fidelity, Strong Family Values, and Economic Empowerment. These represent a path toward renewal rooted not in grievance, but in growth.

Truth Heals — Not Theatre
Slavery and racism were evil. But exploiting that history for political advantage only deepens division. Real healing comes through: truth, repentance, forgiveness, and restoration.

Christ offers reconciliation. Politicians offer resolutions.

The City Council can apologize for the sins of our ancestors if it wishes. But until it addresses the sins of the present — corruption, crime, dependency, spiritual emptiness — no amount of symbolic contrition will repair the heart of this city.

What Black Chicago needs is not another apology. It needs a revival of faith, family, virtue, and responsibility. It’s time to Repent Chicago!

That is the only reparations plan with the power to set us free.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It,  is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Patrick Hall

“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”

It’s simply their business model.  The Democratic Party, the Progressive Intelligentsia that controls our universities and schools as well as corporate media outlets, promotes and nurtures factionalism. Rumors and socio-economic mechanisms that exploit race, ethnicity, religion, and gender are just some of the ways they employ to animate the mob.  As I pointed out several years ago in an earlier opinion piece, Democrats and the Progressive Left discovered years ago that the public policy route was unimportant in their brand of politics. Governmental public policy was far too remote and complicated to create a connection between the leaders and the led. Identity politics and tribal affiliations based on race, gender, class, national origin, or factionalism mattered most. It is often the easiest to exploit. From Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) to politicians like AOC (D-NY), Jasmine Crocket (D-GA), Governor Gavin Newsom of California, to the outright Communist and mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, and the greater DNC all push in some form the perilous and country-killing toxin of Factionalism.  

The political pathogen of Factionalism was the main tool that gave the country Barack Hussein Obama back in 2008.  As I have noted several times in previous articles. In contrast to Obama, Trump loves our country.  Obama, on the other hand, spoke the lingo of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), or multiculturalism on steroids.  It was little more than segregation, tribalism, racism, and latent factionalism under new management. To this day, my opinion of Barrack Hussien Obama is that he was the ultimate Decepticon. Obama was adroit, almost Machiavellian, in the way he could say and do very little that was a net-positive for the country. Most importantly, however, he did it extraordinarily well.    

You also witness the cultural poison of Factionalism in what I call the “real black people neurosis.”  Many Black Americans have been encouraged by the Democratic and Progressive Polity to sit in their little race/ethnic and gender enclaves, waiting to be offended by God knows what.  Unfortunately, it is a cultural weakness in our body politic. One that clever and calculating politicians like Gavin Newsom, Obama, Jim Clyburn (D-NC), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and other prominent Democrats use as their business model.  It was (and still is) the easiest road to electoral power and the most corrosive to the nation. As the late Conservative Talk-Show host Rush Limbaugh observed, more energized blocs of voters could be built by telling voters what was wrong with their lives (and country) rather than what was right. Instead of seeing one another as fellow countrymen, as Americans.  Democrats and DEI advocates have fueled many citizens to wall themselves off, sorting themselves into silos based on party affiliations, race, nationality, gender, you name it.  We have all seen or witnessed people (mostly Progressive Liberal Democrats) banishing friends, neighbors, coworkers, and even family members from their lives.  

During my sojourns at several universities, I was quickly labeled persona non grata once fellow faculty members (mostly by Professional Black People, not to be confused with Black Professionals). They discovered via some of my writings that I was a Black Conservative and not, in their estimation, a “real black person.” I had the wrong type of diversity!

Even today in my current Church congregation, some now give me that strange “look” that wasn’t there before they discovered I was Black Conservative…… “horrors-of-horrors”!

 As former President Joe Biden said to Black Talk Show Host back during the last Presidential election. If you have to think about whether to vote for him, “a Democrat”, as opposed to voting for Donald Trump. Then you ain’t black!  

Here is a simple truth.  Our Democracy, or “Republic,” wasn’t about how we were different. It was about how we were the same. We were supposed to be a melting pot. But I understand that it is now considered a form of racism or cultural appropriation by the “deep-thinkers” of the Progressive Liberal Democrat Diversity Cartel.  Many, if not most, University faculty, especially within the Social/Cultural sciences, are devout members of this Cartel.

 It was about the rights and freedoms that everyone enjoys and how everyone, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or so-called racial differences, protects them.  Democracy was also about your responsibilities, your duties, as a citizen. As Americans, we have sometimes fallen short of the ideals so eloquently stated in our founding documents.  However, self-correction —an “ethos, gift or Grace,” if you will —of Christendom has also been an embedded (at times latent) feature within our “cultural and political physiology.”  

Far too many Americans have been encouraged to see themselves as members of an “entitled subset” first.  Who would rather prance around with a BLM Flag instead of the Stars and Stripes?  Many Hispanics like to identify with La Raza separatists, who would rather fly the flag of Mexico rather than the U.S. Flag at ethnic festivals here at home.

 Here is a quick update. La Raza decided some time ago to rebrand. La Raza, or (The Race), announced that it would change its name from one suggestive of adversarial Chicano politics to something with broader appeal: UnidosUS. Either way, its loyalty to normative American culture remains dubious if not questionable at best. Similar to other ethnic/race industry entrepreneurs like the NAACP, Black Lives Matter, National Action Network, UnidosUS, opinion elites routinely impose cookie-cutter stories of racism against Latinos and Hispanics over far more complicated realities.

Here is a sidebar. When I attend festivals or celebrations like Italian, Irish, Polish, or Greek Celebration Day, I don’t get the sense that there is a subcurrent of animosity toward being a loyal American. Yes, they may have Greek or Irish flags at these festivals, but they do not supersede the engrained loyalty or love the vast majority of people attending have for the Stars and Stripes. In most Black and Hispanic Cultural Days as well as Multicultural Celebrations, there exists an undercurrent that “America sucks,” or at the very least should offer up endless mea culpas for what these culture-bashers deem our awful history and culture. It worked for Mamdani and others within the Democratic Polity.

 We have individuals and groups who would rather throw a Keffiyeh Scarf around themselves to show their solidarity with murdering Islamic Terrorists.  They are the same people or politicians (like Zohran Mamdani or Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) who think of nothing when they use terms like Intifada, Global Intifada, or chant “From the River to the Sea”, which call for the murder of Jews and the end of “Western Civilization.”

These are flashing red lights, a warning that as a democracy, “as a Republic,” as a nation, as Western Culture,  we are in great peril.

By Patrick Hall

“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” Arnold Toynbee

There were just a few special days or holidays back then.  As a child of the 1950s, i.e., a baby boomer, my older 10 siblings and I, whom I refer to as the '30s and '40s kids, defined our childhood around such events as Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, Memorial Day, and July 4th.  Those were pretty much the national holidays that brought us together, first and foremost, as Americans.  Of course, there were exceptions, such as Labor Day, which was somewhat of a disappointment for us kids. It signaled the beginning of the school year, and as a Roman-Catholic, it meant returning to the pedagogic tyranny of the Catholic Nuns. Those ladies were tough, but effective, if not brutal at times. But I digress.

Yet something isn’t quite right today.  At the time of this writing, June, as you all know, was Pride Month. It recognizes the accomplishments, struggles, and specific aspects pertinent to the LGBTQ+ community. Additionally, during June, the celebration of Juneteenth has gained traction as a major holiday throughout the United States. It commemorates, among other things, the end of slavery in the United States. It reminds the black community of where they came from and what they have accomplished as Americans.

However, it conspicuously leaves out the hundreds of thousands of whites who died in the conflict known as the American Civil War. But don’t get me wrong! There is “or was” a value of highlighting this herculean struggle to end chattel slavery.  But far too many blacks have or are using Juneteenth more in the way of a pejorative, or cudgel with the underlying subtext of calling attention to look how bad America was (and still is in the thinking of far too many of the nation's race hustlers and organization like the NAACP, the National Urban League, Nation of Islam as well as the Rev Al Sharpton’s Nation Action Network (NAN). Their goal is to keep “racism” alive within the defamatory nomenclature surrounding the use of terms such as micro-racism, apartheid mentality, implicit race bias, neo-segregation, systemic racism, concurrent with racial propagandists, the Congressional Black Caucus, Black History and Social Science academics, who were (and are) the movers and shakers behind movements like Black Lives Matter and the suicidal idiocy underpinning Defund the Police idealogues.  

As a sidebar, during the height of the Black-lives-Matter movement following the deaths of George Floyd and Michael Brown, financial support of the keep-racism-alive efforts was partially funded by Byte Dance and Huawei, two tech giants heavily associated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). You might ask, what in hell are two Chinese Tech companies involved with the socio-cultural dynamics of race relationships here in the United States? Many other NGOs and left-of-center PACs with ties to countries and individuals, such as the George Soros Foundation, funnel money not only to BLM but also to the NAACP, Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network (NAN), as well as a plethora of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) faculty and student organizations.  This funding is anything but benign.   The CCP and other bad actors, such as Putin’s KGB and the Muslim Brotherhood, don’t have our best interests as a Republic. Their intentions and goals are to divide us. Nothing more! What is even more tragic is that the Congressional Black Caucus, which I view as “the Conclave of the Severely Miseducated,” doesn’t appear to be cognizant of these foreign funding sources.

Once more, most Juneteenth and Black History Month activities serve as a cudgel that ignores the fact that hundreds of thousands of people (mostly white) died in our nation's fight to end slavery.  This has taken a backseat to the easier narrative, which feeds on the story, thesis, or cultural catechism that America is still a racist nation.  This is part of a greater secular dogma. It is a socio-historical polemic conspicuously taught in our school by the multiculturalist crowd, DEI catechumenates within the Liberal Progressive intelligentsia that dominate our institutions of higher learning. Most, if not all, Teacher Education Programs at our colleges and universities are governed by a “left-more left-most left” socio-political enculturation or pedagogy.   They reflexively blame the world's problems on Western man, the United States, and White People.  That ethos exists, for the most part, in many cultural and political celebrations, systemic among my baby-boomer cohort. It is the ubiquitous philosophy/cult of “anti-Westernism” injected into the cultural-political bloodline of the United States since the 1960s and probably before!

Over the last five decades, it has become fashionable, if not an established tradition, to dedicate a month or day to groups or causes that were once marginalized in America’s socio-historical experience. These days, or month-long celebrations have been working to quietly tear, undermine, and fracture the cultural and political cohesiveness of what is America.  Gay Pride Month, Black History Month, Native American Heritage Month, Women's History Month, Latino Heritage Day/Month, the World Day of Social Justice, Celebrate Diversity Month, National Muslim American Heritage Month, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, along with a host of other special holiday celebrations, don’t serve us well as “Americans.”  It is Factionalism, all dressed up with a smiling face. It’s the cultural left's most effective business model.

By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

The recent Virginia gubernatorial election exposed a profound spiritual crisis within American Christianity — particularly in the Black Church. Even when a candidate stood firmly for biblical values, openly professed faith in Christ, and reflected the lived experience of Black believers, the majority of Black voters overwhelmingly rejected her in favor of a white progressive whose positions contradict historic Christian teaching on life, family, and religious liberty.

The implications are sobering: Many in the Church no longer vote their professed values — even when those values are on the ballot.

According to exit poll reporting summarized by The Washington Post, Black voters supported the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate by approximately 85% to 15%, consistent with longstanding national trends. Even with a candidate who openly professed Christian faith and articulated positions aligned with biblical teaching, the vast majority of Black voters cast ballots for the opponent.

This is not primarily a political failure. It is a theological one.

In my book, The Heart of Apostasy, I describe this growing confusion in the Black Church as a crisis of divided loyalty — a departure from biblical authority in favor of cultural identity. As I write: “We are not fully free if we must conform to the opinions and expectations of any particular group.”— The Heart of Apostasy, p. 13

This warning was on full display in Virginia. Despite two candidates who could not be more different in their relationship to Scripture, Black voters chose overwhelmingly along cultural and partisan lines — not spiritual ones.

This reveals what I call the divided heart: a heart that still claims Christ but whose allegiance is shaped more by political identity than by biblical conviction.

Many are unaware of the ideological forces that have subtly reshaped the Church’s priorities. As I note in the book: “Voices… competing for influence… have divided our loyalties, reshaped our worldview, and weakened our witness.”— p. 13

These forces include progressive identity politics, Critical Race Theory, and partisan messaging from the left that has displaced Scripture as the final authority in moral reasoning. As I also write: “Too frequently, the Black Church prioritizes cultural solidarity over Kingdom loyalty.”— p. 13

The tragedy here is not that the culture rejects biblical truth — that is expected. The tragedy is that the Church is rejecting biblical truth in order to remain in good standing with the culture.

The result is predictable: When biblical priorities collide with political ones, many choose politics.

How did we reach this point? Because too many pulpits have grown uncertain. The Word of God has not changed — but our willingness to preach it has.

When pastors refuse to speak on moral issues because those issues are considered “political, they unintentionally disciple their congregations to follow the world’s wisdom rather than God’s Word. Silence becomes endorsement. And when biblical clarity is absent, cultural voices fill the void: “These competing messages have displaced the voice of God’s Word.”— p. 13

The Virginia election revealed the fruit of that displacement.

A candidate who aligned closely with biblical ethics on life, family, and religious liberty lost by enormous margins among Christians who publicly profess belief in those same values.
This disconnect is not accidental. It is the fruit of silence.

This crisis requires more than political commentary — it calls for repentance. As I emphasize: “This is not simply an academic exercise, but a plea to the Church to reclaim its prophetic voice.”— p. 11

We must return to the authority of Scripture over every area of life — including civic engagement. A biblical worldview cannot be something we affirm on Sunday but abandon on Tuesday.

The Church must remember that Christ is not merely Lord of our salvation —He is Lord of our public witness, our moral judgments, and our allegiance.

Every vote is a confession of what we genuinely believe about God and the world He made. As I write: “…the condition of the Black Church and the witness of the entire Church in America depends on how we hear and respond to the Word of God.”— p. 11

The Virginia election was a mirror. It revealed a painful truth: that many in the Church are discipled more by political forces than by Scripture.

The way forward is not partisan loyalty — it is repentance.
We must:

• Return to the Word
• Disciple believers holistically
• Expose competing ideologies
• Lift Christ above culture, race, and party
• 
  

Only then will we reclaim our prophetic voice and bear fruit that stands the test of time.
The choice remains the same as it has always been: Will we serve culture — or Christ?

It is time for the Church to decide.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It,  is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

In a recent social media post, I observed with dismay: ministers publicly prayed over Zohran Mamdani as though he were already New York’s mayor. To my mind, this was a dangerous sign of spiritual presumption — especially when Mamdani, a Muslim socialist, holds beliefs that are profoundly at odds with the gospel. I believe the proper posture would have been a private prayer for his salvation, asking God to grant him an honest and good heart, according to Luke 8:15. If Christians must pray for good governance, that prayer should come after the election—not before it. Until then, we should be praying for the right person to win, someone whose convictions most closely align with biblical principles. If this public praying over a candidate doesn’t reveal a heart of apostasy, I don’t know what does.

A Theology of Timing: Prayers Before vs. After Election
Public intercession for leaders is, in itself, not inherently wrong. But there is a spiritual logic to order. The first and greatest mission of the church is the gospel: the conversion, sanctification, and alignment of all hearts to Christ. Thus, prayers for salvation must precede prayers for governance.

When ministers invoke divine blessing over a candidate before election, they risk elevating that person—implicitly treating them as though they already hold authority. That gesture conveys more than a prayer: it signals confidence and support. If the candidate’s beliefs deeply conflict with Christianity, that act strains credulity.

Moreover, public prayers cast in such a context may become de facto endorsements, making it harder to criticize policies or actions later. Ministers may inadvertently tie their spiritual legitimacy to the candidate’s success or failure.

The Gospel and Mamdani’s Worldview
Zohran Mamdani’s faith and ideology are antithetical to the gospel as Christians understand it. His identification as a Muslim means he rejects core claims of Christ’s lordship. His embrace of democratic socialism tends to promote collectivist and state-centered solutions rather than Christian notions of individual responsibility, stewardship, and the primacy of spiritual transformation.

Given that fundamental divergence, praying publicly over him before an election suggests tacit alignment—or at least a blurring of the boundary between Christian allegiance and secular politics. That is not just poor strategy: it undermines the church’s prophetic witness.

What Ministers Should Have Done Instead
If the goal is to keep church and mission pure, here is how faithful engagement should look:

1. Pray privately first: Ask God to soften his heart, bring him to repentance, open his eyes to truth, and grant him integrity and humility—whether or not he ever holds office.
2. Pray publicly only after discernment: If, after the election, he becomes mayor (or holds a public office), then churches can pray over that office—asking God to guide, restrain, and redeem.
3. Pray for the right person: Before the polls, intercede for the candidate who most nearly reflects biblical convictions—even if imperfect.
4. Keep the content of the prayer faithful: Public prayers should affirm justice, humility, truth, accountability—not vague platitudes. If you pray for a leader, you must also pray against corruption, deception, tyranny.
5. Maintain prophetic distance: Ministers must remain willing to critique, correct, and confront—not be bound by their own public blessing.

Apostasy or Presumption?
To call what happened “apostasy” is strong. But the heart behind it matters. If ministers treat temporal political figures with the same devotion reserved for Christ, that is a grave spiritual misalignment. If they conflate election results with God’s favor, or blur gospel and party, then we tread perilously close to idolatry.

An apostate church does not simply drift silently; it substitutes another sovereignty in place of the Lord. Praying publicly over a candidate who rejects Christ’s lordship—and doing so before any electoral mandate—is a symbolic usurpation. It sends the message that political victory is the real objective—not the advance of Christ’s kingdom.

Conclusion: Reaffirming the Church’s Priority
The church’s identity is not won through politics; its power is in the cross, the Word, and sanctified witness. Ministers must resist pressure to join every political procession prematurely. Our posture should be first to call sinners to Christ, then to pray for rulers, then to prophetically speak into power—not the other way around.

When ministers publicly pray over candidates like Mamdani before election, they risk confusing the people of God. Let us instead keep the gospel central, reserve public intercession for the proper time, and pray first for the salvation of all—regardless of who wins.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It,  is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By  Ken Blackwell & Zack Space

Add our voices to the chorus of elected office holders—or in our case, former elected officials—who have denounced the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk and with it, all forms of political violence. We're in a disconcerting moment of American history, and it will take strong leadership from both sides of the aisle to guide us through.

Last year, we were asked to join the board of the nonprofit Democracy Defense Project (DDP), an organization established to strengthen public confidence in our elections. DDP was created, very intentionally, as a bipartisan organization, and it brought the two of us–one a Republican and the other a Democrat—together in support of basic principles of election integrity.  While we passionately believe in that cause, it was the bipartisan nature of DDP that really drew us to it.  Over our lifetimes we’ve seen a steep deterioration in political discourse, and this seemed like a chance to help counterbalance that trend. Unfortunately, as recent events have made abundantly clear, the fractures within our society continue to deepen.

The lamentable decline of civility among both the political class and our culture writ large, is accelerating.  Political acrimony and divided loyalties are not new to our democratic republic–they've existed throughout our centuries-long history as a nation.  But there’s something particularly insidious, and alarming, about the divisiveness of today’s political and social environment.  Driven largely by the cruel efficiency of digital platforms, many Americans now embrace an “us versus them” world view. Far too many derive information about public events, personalities and policy positions solely through social media forums that promote biased, misleading, and provocative information.  This has resulted in a widespread “warfare” mentality in our approach to political thought and speech, and has contributed to an alarming spike in political violence from all directions on the ideological spectrum, punctuated by the senseless and heartbreaking assassination of Mr. Kirk.
We face a crisis in this country.  Our history tells us that America has been at its very best when our leaders and those they governed were united around a common cause, a noble aspiration, or in defense from an existential threat.  And we have been at our very worst when we experience deep societal disharmony.

We don’t pretend to have an immediate solution to remedy this crisis, but we believe it starts with leadership.  We urge those in public office to deescalate the dangerous rhetoric that threatens the stability of our country.  Regardless of the office held, public officials should set the standard for healthy dialogue by openly working across party lines to demonstrate the value of civil discourse and denounce political violence without hesitation or caveat.  Set the standard for the people you govern.  Refrain from generalizing and casting blame against opposing ideologies, and remind your constituents that regardless of how we might disagree on policies, we remain united in our vision for a country that is prosperous, safe, healthy and just.   And carry that spirit of openness and grace with you into the future.

Just as leadership matters, so too do the personal virtues of compassion, tolerance, acceptance and understanding that we can exercise in our day to day lives.  All of us, regardless of our station in life, should take a step back, log off, and seek out real–not digital–conversations with others, especially those with whom we disagree.  And when you have those conversations, listen authentically and respectfully to each other, and learn. We think you’ll find that we all have much more in common than what the never-ending stream of vitriol emanating from your phone might otherwise suggest.

About the Authors
J. Kenneth Blackwell (R-OH) is a former two-term Ohio secretary of state and Zack Space (D-OH) formerly represented Ohio’s 18th Congressional District. As members of Democracy Defense Project’s Board of Directors, Blackwell and Space spearhead initiatives in Ohio to preserve election integrity and foster greater confidence in election results across the state. @DemoDefenseProj @ZackSpaceOhio

By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

It’s one of the great paradoxes of our time. Many conservative pastors courageously preach a biblical worldview from their pulpits—defending life, marriage, and religious freedom—yet when it comes to the political process, they retreat into silence. They will preach about righteousness, but when Christian candidates who share their values ask for help—something as simple as gathering signatures to get on the ballot—they often decline.

This reluctance doesn’t just hurt individual candidates; it weakens the Church’s ability to influence culture. It leaves the field open for those whose values are hostile to the faith.

Pastors on the Left have no such reservations. As The Heart of Apostasy points out, churches aligned with progressive movements openly support initiatives like the Black Church PAC, mobilizing voters and resources for liberal causes. They see politics as an extension of their theology—a vehicle for advancing what they believe is justice. Meanwhile, too many conservative pastors treat the political process as “unspiritual,” as if God’s sovereignty ends at the voting booth.

This is more than perplexing—it’s tragic.

The political cycle should be one of the greatest opportunities for discipleship in the Church. Elections force us to confront moral questions about life, family, stewardship, and truth. They reveal whether we truly believe that Christ is Lord over all of life—including government. When pastors avoid this arena, they fail to teach their congregations how to live out their faith in the public square.

It’s not about partisanship; it’s about principle. Pastors should help their people discern candidates who uphold biblical truth, not shrink back out of fear of “dividing the congregation.” Division is not caused by truth—it’s caused by the refusal to stand on it. If a member of the congregation runs for office but holds values contrary to Scripture, that should not silence the Church; it should sharpen its teaching on what righteousness in leadership looks like.

When churches disengage, they unwittingly empower the very ideologies they preach against. Silence in the face of moral decay is not neutrality—it’s complicity.

We’ve already seen the cost of silence. Charlie Kirk lost his life engaging the Church, calling believers to stand for truth and courage in a time of moral confusion. Dr. Voddie Baucham spent his final days warning the Church about the dangers of Cultural Marxism and the falling away from biblical orthodoxy in both the pulpit and the public square. These men did not shrink back; they gave everything to awaken the Church to its responsibility. Their voices remind us that faith without action is dead—and that silence in the face of deception is itself a form of apostasy.

Our faith compels us to act. Elections are not distractions from the Gospel; they are moments when the Gospel’s implications are tested in public life. Helping a godly candidate get on the ballot is not “political.” It’s obedience to Christ’s call to be salt and light in every sphere.

It’s time for pastors to rediscover their prophetic role—not as political operatives, but as shepherds who guide their flocks to think biblically about everything, including the ballot box. The Church must stop viewing civic engagement as optional. It is, in fact, one of the most spiritual acts a believer can perform: applying biblical truth to the stewardship of freedom.

If the Church won’t engage the culture when it matters most, then it has surrendered the moral authority to complain about the direction that culture takes.

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It,  is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.

By Patrick Hall

Of course, it was all made much worse by the psycho-political insanity of the Defund the Police movement.  We saw cities burn and people killed in places like Minneapolis, LA, Oakland, Seattle, and Portland, Oregon, during the George Floyd riots of 2020.  Today, the attack and outright disrespect of Law enforcement continues with the targeting of National Guard, DHS, and ICE constabulary, currently aiding local, state, and federal law enforcement, trying to enforce Federal immigration laws, after former President Biden (or whoever was running the country) let millions of “illegal” aliens into the country.  Here is lesson number one. They are not migrants, but illegal aliens!  Yes, many of them were looking for a better life for themselves, along with the hazardous criminal element within their ranks. But they are still illegal and not just innocent migrants that the leftist media establishment (a redundancy in terms) tries to manipulate many of us into believing.  

However, here is what you won’t hear from all the experts in center-left academia, the media, the BLM cabal, and of course from the (Conclave of the Severely Miseducated) otherwise known as the Congressional Black Caucus.  Too many young and not-so-young black people have been taught to disrespect, adopt a belligerent posture, not listen to, and, in many cases, totally ignore requests and/or directions from law enforcement. An entire segment of our populace, which includes not only Blacks, but also a significant portion of the Hispanic community, accompanied by the obligatory Defund the Police, and far Left Democratic/Progressive constituencies have been tutored (if not brainwashed) not to afford a basic comportment of respect for law enforcement when these officials go about performing their everyday jobs of keeping the communities that they are charged safe. Speaking with police officers over the past three decades and having relatives in law enforcement, even the simplest requests and questioning by police officers in the administration of their everyday street duties are often met with defiance, an attitude that they (that is, young black men) are somehow above the law.

(Sidebar: Once again, the disrespect and violence we see toward ICE, DHS, and other auxiliary law enforcement as they go about their job of enforcing “Federal Immigration Law” is an extension of this mindset.)

Subsequently, this makes enforcing the law, as well as neighborhood civility, nearly impossible in many inner-city precincts. The so-called profiling and open killing of black men have more to do with a host of life decisions (many of them bad).  They include, but are not limited to, a lack of proper mentoring, the devolution of anything resembling a stable family structure within the black underclass, as well as basic “civic behavior” that has been lost, or not even taught in the post-Civil Rights African American community.
Tragically, (if not egregiously naive) basic civic behavior in the current urban catechism of many within the black community is oftentimes viewed as “acting white.

To reiterate, too many blacks are engaged in illegal activities, including murder (e.g., Decarlos Brown Jr), which brings them into contact with the police, where the potential of something going sideways has been ginned up by the cultural left’s blatantly false narrative of police brutality. This toxic, if not culturally boorish, way of thinking about law enforcement has been injected into a large portion of the black community, including government officials such as Senators Cory Booker (D-NY) and Angela Deneece Alsobrooks (D-MD), as well as Congressional Representatives Jamine Crocket (D-TX), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).  It is this writer's opinion that the former are “intelligent” but totally amoral, corrupt, slick, two-faced, if not unctuous individuals, similar to Barack Obama.¹    The latter, like Jamine Crocket, are dangerously stupid.  Subsequently, many blacks, as well as a significant portion of the Progressive Democratic Left, including Antifa, exhibit a response to law enforcement that borders on Pavlovian.

From a micro-relational standpoint, many street-level Officers who are charged with maintaining civil society within the current “cashless bail psychopathy” are reporting being met with recalcitrant behavior for even the slightest questioning of suspects in neighborhoods that Barack Obama, Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and Liberal Democrat Progressives (both white and black) wouldn’t be caught dead in. Mouthing off, walking, or running away when told to stop, and a host of other pejorative behaviors that now precede many stops by police, is dangerously being “You-Tubed-Up” by the Democratic media for the sole purpose of leveraging the political currency surrounding such events. It is a dangerous form of political theater for both Law Enforcement and the communities they are sworn to protect.

Let me be even more blunt.  In Post-Civil Rights America, it is an unfortunate reality that the people who have made the least progress toward racial and social justice have often been black. Why is this? Quite simple. They haven’t had too.
________
1. The exploits or con job of Dr. Ian Roberts was an example of a brilliant, but slick, corrupt, if not amoral, individual. He is probably not that uncommon in the politically correct/woke nomenclature of our education system. It is a world replete with DEI and guilt-ridden Progressive Liberals (mostly Democrats) who dominate every aspect of K-12 education, as well as Teacher Education at our nation’s universities. Roberts joined the Des Moines School District in 2023 and had previously held leadership positions in school districts across the United States for 20 years. Many may ask, how could this guy ever be considered the best candidate for the job after a nationwide search?  The answer is simple, if not painful! This is WOKE at its best. Dr Roberts(?) was an affirmative action hire. He was the right color for the Liberal administrators who run our schools.  As I point out, back in 1991, in an article appearing in American Libraries Magazine. Affirmative Action has always been a public policy “windfall” for middle-class blacks, college-educated women, as well as for foreign nationals (like Dr. Roberts) with the right skin tone……(Legal or Illegal).