In God We Trust

The content creator's coaching services are available to everyone, but she specializes in working with individuals who have been or are currently affiliated with Jehovah's Witnesses. She offers support for active members, inactive individuals, those who have been disfellowshipped, and former Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination known for their distinct beliefs and practices, which emphasize adherence to their interpretation of the Bible. They believe in one God, referred to as Jehovah, and view Jesus Christ as His Son and the savior, though not as part of a Trinity. Salvation, according to their teachings, requires faith in Christ, association with God's organization (i.e., their religion), and obedience to its rules. ​Religion Media CentreThe Gospel Coalition

A notable practice within the Jehovah's Witness community is "shunning," or disfellowshipping, which involves avoiding social interaction with former members who have been expelled for violating the group's moral code. This practice is based on their interpretation of biblical directives to maintain the congregation's purity. The official policy mandates that baptized members who unrepentantly engage in serious sins are to be shunned, including by family members. ​Wikipedia+3Bitter Winter+3JW.org+3reddit.com

However, recent developments indicate a slight relaxation in these shunning practices. After legal challenges, such as the decision by the Oslo District Court in Norway to strip Jehovah's Witnesses of their official status as a registered faith community, the organization has eased some disciplinary measures, particularly concerning younger members who commit serious wrongdoing. ​AvoidJW+2PubMed Central+2CNE News+2CNE News

Understanding these dynamics is crucial for those concerned about potential shunning, as it highlights both the traditional practices and the evolving nature of the organization's policies.

Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination known for their distinct beliefs and practices, which set them apart from mainstream Christianity. Originating in the United States in the late 19th century, they have grown into a global community with millions of adherents.​Reuters

Beliefs and Practices

Central to the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses is the belief in one God, whom they refer to as Jehovah. They consider the Bible to be God's inspired message and base all their teachings on its contents. Jesus Christ is viewed as Jehovah's first creation and His Son, but not as part of a Trinity; instead, they hold a unitarian view of God. ​Wikipedia+2JW.org+2Religion Media Centre+2

Salvation, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, requires faith in Christ, association with God's organization (their denomination), and adherence to its rules. They believe that only 144,000 faithful Christians will reign with Christ in heaven, while the majority of obedient mankind will live eternally on a paradise earth. ​

Their practices include regular attendance at Kingdom Hall meetings, participation in door-to-door evangelism, and adherence to a strict moral code. They abstain from premarital sex, homosexuality, adultery, smoking, drunkenness, drug abuse, and blood transfusions, viewing these as incompatible with biblical teachings. ​Wikipedia

Global Presence

As of 2024, Jehovah's Witnesses report the following statistics:​JW Facts+4Wikipedia+4JW.org+4

• Number of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide: 9,043,460​Wikipedia+2JW.org+2JW.org+2

• Congregations: 118,767​JW.org

• Lands where Jehovah's Witnesses preach: 240​

 

These figures reflect a steady global presence, with active preaching and community engagement in numerous countries.​Reuters

Recent Developments

In recent years, Jehovah's Witnesses have faced various challenges and changes:​

• Persecution: There has been an increase in state persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in certain countries, affecting their ability to practice their faith freely. ​USCIRF

• Public Perception: The community continues to address misconceptions about their beliefs and practices, striving for greater understanding and acceptance in diverse societies.​

Conclusion

Jehovah's Witnesses maintain a unique position within the global religious landscape, characterized by distinct beliefs, dedicated evangelism, and a commitment to what they interpret as biblical principles. Their global reach and cohesive community structure continue to influence their interactions with broader society.

​

Sources:

• What Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe?

• Jehovah's Witnesses—Fast Facts Listed by Country

• The 11 Beliefs You Should Know about Jehovah's Witnesses When They Knock at the Door

• Jehovah's Witnesses practices - Wikipedia

• Issue Update: The Global Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses

 

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

In recent discussions, some commentators have explored the prophetic and historical connections between Gaza and the Nephilim, ancient giants mentioned in biblical texts. The Nephilim are described in Genesis 6:1–4 as offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men," leading to a race of formidable beings. Further narratives, such as those in the Book of Numbers, recount encounters with their descendants, the Anakim, during the Israelites' exploration of Canaan.

These beings were described in the Old Testament as fearsome warriors, possessing great stature and strength, making them formidable opponents to the Israelites. The Anakim were among the last remnants of the Nephilim, whose origins are linked to the mysterious union between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" described in Genesis 6:1–4. This connection has fueled theories that the region was once home to beings of supernatural or hybrid lineage.

Despite efforts by Joshua and the Israelites to eradicate these giants during the conquest of Canaan, remnants of the Anakim persisted in several Philistine-controlled cities, particularly Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. The enduring presence of these giants is explicitly highlighted in Joshua 11:22, which states: "None of the Anakim were left in the land of the children of Israel; they remained only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod." This passage suggests that, while the Israelites largely succeeded in driving out or destroying the Anakim in central and northern Canaan, some of these entities survived in these coastal strongholds, where they continued to pose a challenge to the emerging Israelite nation.

Gaza’s biblical history as a refuge for the last of the Anakim adds another layer of significance to its strategic and spiritual importance throughout history. It remained a fortified city, frequently mentioned in conflicts between the Philistines and Israelites. The Philistines, who controlled Gaza, were often depicted as warriors of great might, and some scholars believe their elite fighters may have been descendants of the Anakim. The most famous example of this theory is Goliath of Gath, described in 1 Samuel 17 as a colossal warrior over nine feet tall who faced off against King David. The presence of Goliath and his four giant brothers in Gath suggests that, even centuries after Joshua’s conquest, the Anakim bloodline had not been entirely eliminated.

The association of Gaza with the lingering presence of giants has led some to reinterpret historical and modern events through a biblical lens. Some believe that the struggles over Gaza today reflect an ancient spiritual battle that has played out over millennia. This perspective suggests that, just as Gaza was once home to physical giants who opposed the people of Israel, it remains a symbolic and contested territory where spiritual forces continue to battle for dominion.

Though mainstream archaeology and biblical scholarship have yet to confirm the physical existence of Nephilim or Anakim remains in Gaza, the persistent legends and biblical references keep the subject alive. Ancient accounts, combined with historical conflicts, have led many to speculate that the region’s ongoing tensions may be part of a much older cosmic struggle, echoing the ancient battles between God’s people and the remnants of the Nephilim bloodline. Whether viewed as historical, spiritual, or symbolic, Gaza’s connection to the Anakim remains a compelling and mysterious part of biblical history.

The association between Gaza and the Nephilim has led some to interpret ongoing conflicts in the region through a spiritual lens, believing that the ancient struggles against the Anakim were not just military conquests but part of a larger, ongoing battle between divine forces and those that oppose them. In this view, the historical presence of the Anakim in Gaza is not merely a matter of biblical record but a significant marker of spiritual warfare that continues to play out in modern geopolitical struggles.

Throughout biblical history, Gaza remained a stronghold of opposition to Israel, resisting divine mandates and standing as a symbol of rebellion and defiance. The Philistines, who controlled Gaza and other coastal cities, were often depicted as enemies of God's people, engaging in battles with the Israelites and attempting to suppress their growth as a nation. Many biblical scholars and theologians see this as a reflection of a deeper spiritual reality—one in which Gaza has historically been a place of conflict between forces aligned with divine order and those resisting it.

This interpretation aligns with Ephesians 6:12, which states, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Those who support this view believe that the struggles in Gaza today are not just political or military but spiritual in nature, representing a manifestation of ancient conflicts that continue into the modern era. They suggest that just as Joshua and David fought against the physical descendants of the Nephilim, the battles over Gaza today represent a continuation of a war between divine and rebellious forces.

Some biblical researchers point to the Book of Amos (Amos 1:6-8) and Zephaniah 2:4-7, where prophetic judgments are pronounced over Gaza, warning of its destruction and desolation. These scriptures are seen by some as evidence that the struggles surrounding Gaza were foretold and remain relevant in today’s conflicts. The belief is that, whether through spiritual forces, generational curses, or historical cycles, Gaza continues to be a focal point of turmoil due to its ancient ties to the Nephilim and opposition to Israel.

Others link this perspective to prophecies about the end times, suggesting that the unresolved conflicts in Gaza could be part of a larger eschatological pattern leading up to the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. Passages such as Zechariah 12:3, which states that "Jerusalem will become a burdensome stone for all people", are sometimes interpreted to mean that tensions surrounding Israel and its neighboring regions will persist until a final divine intervention takes place.

While mainstream historians and archaeologists do not recognize a direct link between ancient Nephilim traditions and modern geopolitical struggles, this perspective remains significant among those who see history as a continuous battle between good and evil, divine purpose and rebellion, order and chaos. Whether understood metaphorically or literally, the idea that Gaza has been and continues to be a battleground of spiritual significance persists among those who believe that history is guided by divine forces beyond what is seen in the physical realm.

While these interpretations offer a compelling and deeply symbolic perspective on the region’s enduring conflicts, it is important to approach them with a critical and balanced lens. Much of the association between Gaza and the Nephilim is drawn from theological extrapolation, relying on biblical texts, oral traditions, and speculative interpretations of historical events rather than concrete archaeological or scientific evidence. The idea that Gaza has been a spiritual battleground since ancient times resonates strongly within biblical prophecy and eschatology, but remains a matter of faith rather than established historical fact.

Mainstream biblical scholarship and archaeology have yet to uncover definitive physical evidence confirming the existence of Nephilim or Anakim as described in the Bible. While there have been reports and theories of unusually large skeletal remains found across the Middle East, these claims often lack verifiable documentation and are generally dismissed by academic institutions. Most historians categorize the biblical accounts of the Anakim and Nephilim as either mythological, exaggerated historical accounts of real warrior clans, or symbolic representations of ancient Israel’s struggles against formidable enemies.

Furthermore, ancient Canaanite culture and Philistine civilization, which controlled Gaza for much of antiquity, have been extensively studied through archaeological excavations. These findings have provided valuable insights into their religious practices, political structures, and interactions with neighboring societies, yet no concrete evidence of Nephilim or supernatural beings has surfaced. Skeptics argue that the concept of giants could have stemmed from historical figures of great stature, exaggerated warrior legends, or ancient kings portrayed as godlike beings in religious texts.

Despite the lack of physical evidence, these biblical narratives continue to shape contemporary perspectives, especially among theological scholars and those who view history through a spiritual or prophetic lens. The idea that Gaza's conflicts are tied to an ancient, ongoing struggle between divine and rebellious forces persists as a thematic undercurrent in eschatological discussions. Many who subscribe to these beliefs argue that the absence of archaeological confirmation does not negate spiritual truth, as faith-based interpretations often transcend the material realm and focus on symbolic and prophetic significance.

In this broader context, these narratives serve as a bridge between history, prophecy, and modern geopolitics, influencing how some perceive global events, warfare, and the ultimate fulfillment of biblical prophecy. While they remain speculative and not universally accepted, their impact on religious thought and discourse is undeniable, continuing to shape perspectives on Gaza’s historical and spiritual significance. Whether taken as literal history, metaphorical prophecy, or religious allegory, the idea that the struggles in Gaza echo an ancient biblical conflict remains a potent and enduring belief among those who view world events through the lens of scripture and divine intervention.

For a more in-depth exploration of this topic, you may find the following video insightful:

The Occult Connection Between Gaza and Nephilim | Mondo Gonzales

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

In February 2025, North Dakota lawmakers introduced House Concurrent Resolution 3020, a bold legislative effort seeking to officially recognize the “Kingship of Jesus Christ” within the state. Spearheaded by Representative Nico Rios of Williston, the resolution asserts that Jesus Christ’s authority extends beyond spiritual matters into the realm of civil governance, influencing the moral and ethical foundation upon which laws and policies are established.

...and acknowledging Christ’s sovereignty is not about establishing a theocracy but reaffirming the role of Christian values in shaping the moral compass of the state. The resolution cites biblical references, such as Matthew 28:18, where Jesus declares, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” and Daniel 7:14, which speaks of Christ’s everlasting dominion over nations. Furthermore, the resolution points to the preamble of North Dakota’s state constitution, which begins with: “We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God…” as evidence that the state’s historical framework has always acknowledged divine authority.

Beyond theological affirmation, supporters argue that recognizing the Kingship of Christ could serve as a moral guidepost for state policies, advocating for laws that align with Christian principles such as the protection of life, religious liberty, and the sanctity of marriage. They believe that moral decay in society is largely due to a departure from biblical truth, and that reaffirming Christ’s rule could restore social harmony, strengthen family values, and promote law and order.

However, the resolution has sparked strong opposition, particularly from civil liberties groups and secular organizations who view it as a direct violation of the First Amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of North Dakota has condemned the resolution, stating that government institutions should remain neutral in religious matters. Opponents argue that formally declaring Christ as sovereign could alienate non-Christian citizens and create a precedent for government endorsement of religion, which they claim contradicts the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The resolution also reignites the broader debate about the separation of church and state, with critics warning that such a measure blurs the line between religious faith and government authority. They argue that while faith plays a vital role in the lives of many Americans, government entities should not favor one religion over others. Additionally, some fear that passage of such resolutions could lead to legal challenges, questioning whether a state government can formally recognize the authority of a specific religious figure without infringing on constitutional boundaries.

Despite the controversy, the resolution has gained considerable grassroots support, with many Christian leaders and conservative activists rallying behind the effort, seeing it as a necessary stand against increasing secularization in government and culture. Churches across the state have voiced overwhelming approval, urging lawmakers to embrace the resolution as a declaration of faith and a return to the nation's religious heritage.

As of mid-February 2025, House Concurrent Resolution 3020 remains under legislative consideration, with intense debates expected in the coming weeks. Regardless of the outcome, the resolution has already sparked a national conversation on the role of faith in governance and whether states have the authority to formally recognize Christianity’s foundational role in American society.

The document references biblical passages, such as Matthew 28:18 and Daniel 7:14, to support its claims, reinforcing the idea that Jesus Christ’s authority extends beyond spiritual matters into the governance of nations. Matthew 28:18, where Jesus declares, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” is often cited in Christian theology as proof of Christ’s ultimate sovereignty over human institutions. Daniel 7:14 further supports this notion, describing a divine kingdom that “shall not be destroyed” and is given to one whose dominion is everlasting. By invoking these verses, the resolution asserts that North Dakota’s government should recognize Christ’s dominion as an integral part of its foundational principles.

Beyond biblical justification, the resolution turns to historical and constitutional precedent, highlighting the preamble of North Dakota’s Constitution, which states: "We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God…" This phrasing, which echoes the foundational language of many early American state constitutions, is presented as evidence that North Dakota has long acknowledged divine authority in its governance. Proponents argue that recognizing Christ’s kingship does not constitute a new or radical shift, but rather a reaffirmation of values that have been embedded in the state’s identity since its founding.

The resolution calls for the state to formally acknowledge Christ’s dominion to secure "the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace, and harmony." Supporters believe that society has drifted away from moral and ethical stability, leading to increased crime, social unrest, and government corruption. They argue that reaffirming Christ’s rule is not about establishing a theocracy, but about anchoring civil governance in moral absolutes that promote justice, righteousness, and accountability. The resolution suggests that only through divine guidance can a state experience true liberty—one rooted in responsibility and adherence to moral law rather than secular relativism.

Critics, however, view these assertions as problematic and potentially unconstitutional, arguing that state recognition of a specific religious figure could alienate non-Christian residents and violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits government favoritism of one religion over another. Organizations such as the ACLU and secular advocacy groups argue that such a measure crosses the line between personal faith and government policy, raising concerns about religious inclusivity and equal representation.

The debate surrounding the resolution reflects broader national tensions over the role of Christianity in government, with conservative Christians seeing it as a necessary stand against increasing secularization, while opponents warn that it sets a dangerous precedent for religious entanglement in state affairs. Regardless of its legislative fate, the resolution has already stirred significant discussion about the intersection of faith, law, and governance, reinforcing ongoing debates about whether America’s founding principles were meant to be strictly secular or inherently tied to religious belief.

However, the proposal has faced significant opposition. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of North Dakota argues that such a resolution violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. Cody Schuler, the ACLU's advocacy manager, stated that endorsing a specific religious tradition is "not only unconstitutional but inappropriate in a state that serves a diverse population."

As of mid-February 2025, the resolution remains under consideration, with debates highlighting the tension between religious expression and constitutional boundaries in governmental affairs.

Sources:

• North Dakota GOP lawmakers introduce bill to 'acknowledge the Kingship of Jesus Christ'

• North Dakota resolution aims to declare Jesus Christ 'King of the World'

• You Won’t BELIEVE Which State Just Officially Declared ‘CHRIST IS KING’!!!

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Throughout history, governments and world leaders have often proclaimed “peace and security” as a means of reassuring the public, particularly in times of political instability, economic uncertainty, or global conflict. The phrase carries significant weight, often used to signal the supposed triumph of diplomacy, military strength, or international agreements. However, such declarations have historically been met with skepticism, as they frequently precede periods of turmoil, societal collapse, or even war.

Many religious scholars' reference 1 Thessalonians 5:3, which states: "While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.” This verse is often understood to mean that when the world is lulled into a false sense of security, sudden and catastrophic events will unfold, bringing an end to a particular era or ushering in a time of reckoning.

From a historical perspective, similar patterns have played out repeatedly. Before World War I, leaders across Europe assured their people that diplomacy and alliances would prevent any major conflict. Instead, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggered a chain reaction that plunged the world into a devastating war. The same rhetoric echoed before World War II, with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain infamously declaring “peace for our time” after signing the Munich Agreement with Hitler in 1938. Within a year, Germany invaded Poland, igniting another global conflict.

In modern times, world governments continue to use the narrative of peace and security to maintain public order. International organizations, such as the United Nations, NATO, and the World Economic Forum, frequently promote initiatives aimed at fostering peace and global stability. However, critics argue that behind the façade of diplomatic resolutions and peace agreements, geopolitical tensions remain unresolved, and conflicts continue to escalate behind the scenes.

Another interpretation of this theme ties into concerns over government overreach and authoritarianism. Many fear that when world leaders declare peace and security, it often comes at the cost of personal freedoms. Policies implemented under the guise of global stability—such as digital surveillance, social credit systems, and centralized economic control—could erode individual rights while giving governing bodies unprecedented authority over their populations. Historically, oppressive regimes have often justified extreme measures by claiming they were necessary for maintaining peace.

There is also a growing belief among some that technological advancements and artificial intelligence will be used to enforce a new kind of global order, where compliance is demanded in exchange for promised security. This could take the form of centralized digital currencies, AI-powered governance, and stricter regulations on free speech and personal behavior. While proponents argue these changes will create a safer, more interconnected world, skeptics warn that such developments could lead to a false sense of security, where people willingly trade their freedoms for a system that appears stable on the surface but is ultimately fragile and unsustainable.

Whether one views this idea from a biblical, historical, or political perspective, the pattern remains consistent: when governments assure the world that all is well, unforeseen events often challenge that illusion. This has led many to believe that peace and security are not indicators of stability but rather warning signs that a significant shift—whether political, economic, or spiritual—is on the horizon.

 

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.  

Paula White, a prominent televangelist and spiritual advisor to former President Donald Trump, has faced criticism for her practice of speaking in tongues during public prayers. In a notable instance, during a livestreamed prayer service in 2020, White prayed fervently for Trump's reelection, speaking in tongues and referencing "demonic confederacies" attempting to undermine the election.

The backlash against White is seen as yet another example of the mainstream media and secular critics attacking outspoken Christians, particularly those aligned with conservative politics. Many on the right argue that faith leaders like White are unfairly scrutinized for their beliefs simply because they support Trump and advocate for biblical values in the political arena. 

Conservatives see the condemnation of White’s public prayers as an attempt to delegitimize Christian influence in government while ignoring or even celebrating religious expressions from left-leaning faith leaders. To many, this is part of a broader cultural battle where traditional Christianity is under siege, and figures like Paula White are being targeted because they refuse to conform to the progressive secular narrative.

Speaking in tongues, or glossolalia, is a practice where individuals utter speech-like sounds that are believed to be languages unknown to the speaker. This phenomenon is often associated with religious experiences, particularly within Pentecostal and charismatic Christian traditions. Believers view it as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, enabling them to communicate in a divine language during moments of spiritual ecstasy or intense prayer.

The growing criticism of speaking in tongues is reflective of a broader attack on traditional Christian practices. Many on the right argue that secular forces and progressive ideologies have sought to delegitimize expressions of faith that do not conform to a modern, politically correct version of religion. Pentecostal and charismatic Christians have been particularly targeted because their form of worship, including speaking in tongues, is unapologetically spiritual and deeply rooted in biblical traditions. Conservatives see this criticism as part of a larger effort to marginalize Christian influence in the public square while simultaneously promoting alternative belief systems that align with progressive political agendas. To many on the right, defending religious practices like glossolalia is not just about faith, but about preserving religious liberty in a culture increasingly hostile to Christianity.

The practice has biblical roots, with references in the New Testament describing early Christians speaking in tongues as a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit. For instance, on the day of Pentecost, the apostles were said to have spoken in various languages, allowing them to communicate the gospel to people of different linguistic backgrounds.

The biblical foundation of speaking in tongues is undeniable, yet modern secular and progressive critics often dismiss or mock it as irrational or outdated. Many on the right argue that such dismissals are part of a broader trend of diminishing the authority of scripture and undermining traditional Christian beliefs.

 They see the rejection of biblical practices like glossolalia as an attempt to erode the spiritual foundations of Western society, replacing them with secular humanism and moral relativism. Conservatives believe that defending these biblical traditions is not just about preserving faith, but about protecting the cultural and moral fabric that has sustained America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. 

The effort to delegitimize speaking in tongues is viewed as part of a wider campaign to push Christianity out of public life, and many see standing firm in these spiritual practices as essential to safeguarding religious freedom.

However, speaking in tongues remains a topic of debate within the Christian community. Some denominations embrace it as a legitimate spiritual gift, while others are skeptical, viewing it as unnecessary or even fabricated. Critics argue that public displays, especially by high-profile figures like White, can appear performative and may alienate those unfamiliar with or opposed to the practice.

In response to the criticism, supporters of White emphasize the personal and profound nature of glossolalia, asserting that it represents a deep connection with the divine. They argue that such expressions of faith should be respected as integral components of individual religious experience.

The controversy surrounding Paula White's public speaking in tongues highlights the broader discussion about the place of charismatic practices in modern Christianity and the varying interpretations of spiritual expressions within the faith community.

Christian leaders who openly express their faith are unfairly scrutinized, particularly when they align with conservative values and political figures like President Trump. 

Many on the right argue that the criticism of White is not about theological debate, but rather a coordinated effort to delegitimize public expressions of Christianity, especially those that challenge progressive ideals. They see the media’s focus on White’s charismatic practices as selective outrage, as left-leaning religious leaders who promote liberal policies rarely face the same level of scrutiny. Conservatives believe that defending figures like White is not just about theology—it is about pushing back against a culture that increasingly seeks to silence and marginalize Christian voices in the public sphere.

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.