A jam-packed Top 5 Plus this morning with special emphasis on Israel, anti-Semitism, the doctrine of the Rapture, and a shout-out for Sarah Holliday of The Washington Stand.
1) “Megyn Kelly is wrong: Neutrality on right-wing antisemitism is immoral: The podcaster and the late Charlie Kirk were wrong to refuse to cut ties with Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. This failure is poisoning American conservatism.” (Jonathan S. Tobin, JNS)From the article -- Now that the full contents of that letter have been published, everyone can see that Owens is a liar and that Kelly is trying to salvage an argument that hasn’t a leg to stand on.
The letter makes clear that the claims that Kirk had turned on Israel were false. He was as dedicated to its support as ever; however, he was also concerned about the nation losing the information war with so much of the public on social media and the mainstream media being deceived by Hamas propaganda and lies about Israeli military conduct during the battle against the Hamas terror organization in Gaza.
That’s a problem for a small but not insignificant collection of voices on the far right.
They have joined forces with their counterparts on the left to attack Israel in a manner that is not only unfair and disconnected from the facts about the events in the Middle East, but also increasingly indistinguishable from antisemitism. Their demonization of Israel and attempts to delegitimize its right to defend itself against Islamist foes -- who are just as interested in waging a religious war on both the West and the United States -- is deeply hateful. But it is also no different from the arguments heard from the red-green coalition of Islamists and leftists that have sought to silence, intimidate and target Jews for violence on the streets of American cities and college campuses in the last two years.
Related articles: “Kirk Cameron Has Done Wonderful Things For The Gospel But He Is Greatly Mistaken About Israel” (Olivier Melnick, Harbinger's Daily)
“Be Careful, Church: The ‘Theological’ Arguments Against Israel Are Shamefully Wrong” (Robert Gottselig, Harbinger’s Daily)
“J’accuse: Britain's political and cultural establishment has blood on its hands today” (Melanie Phillips, Substack)
“God’s Character And Unchanging Word Dismantle The Lie Of Replacement Theology” (Josh Davis, Harbinger’s Daily)
2) “No Service for Jesus Is Small” (Stephen Witmer, Desiring God)
From the article -- The word for serve in verse 31 refers to attending, caring for, and helping others, including waiting on them at table. Simon’s mother-in-law is probably bringing bread, refilling cups, wiping crumbs, clearing dishes. Her service is ordinary. She’s not painting a masterpiece to honor Jesus, or building a cathedral for him, or composing a song to be performed by a two-hundred-member choir. Her service is more ordinary than that. She herself is an ordinary person. In fact, she’s not even named in the story — instead, she’s identified by means of her relationship with her famous son-in-law (Simon). Moreover, she’s performing her humble service in a humble town: the fishing village of Capernaum, which had perhaps fifteen hundred residents.
So, her service for Jesus is not an extraordinary effort by a famous person in a famous place. It’s not Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling, Bach’s Mass in B Minor, or a Charles Spurgeon sermon. It’s just a no-name woman in a no-name place putting bread on a table.
And yet it gets a mention in the Bible. “She began to serve them.” Mark considers her service worth including. We still read about it two thousand years later. It matters greatly. Why? To understand, let’s draw two implications from this passage for our own service to others.
3) In the Number Three slot this week, I’m going to draw your attention not only to one of my favorite sources, but also to one of the best, most perceptive, and most relevant writers for that publication. The website is The Washington Stand, a terrific service provided by the Family Research Council. And the writer I’m showcasing? Sarah Holliday. Here you go...
“Half of American Adults Reject the Bible. Christian, Here’s What that Means for You” (Sarah Holliday, Washington Stand)
“Meat vs. Sugar: The Need for Healthy, Strong Churches amid Increased Attendance” (Sarah Holliday, Washington Stand)
“Pro-Lifers Slam FDA’s ‘Reckless’ Move to Quietly Expand Abortion Pill Access” (Sarah Holliday, Washington Stand)
4) “Laugh All You Want, The Rapture Is Not Escapism Or Fantasy...It’s Biblical” (Greg Laurie, Harbinger’s Daily)
From the article -- Here’s why this isn’t just a fun theological parlor game: the Rapture gives hope. Paul calls it the “blessed hope.” When you’ve buried a loved one, you don’t need vague talk about them being “in a better place.” You need the solid promise that in one split second, you’ll be with them again. Parents reunited with children. Husbands with wives. Brothers and sisters together again. And at the center of it all—Jesus Christ Himself.
And it does more than comfort grief. It motivates godliness. If you really believe Jesus could return at any moment, maybe don’t binge sin like it’s Netflix. You wouldn’t invite your best friend into a house piled with dirty laundry and Taco Bell wrappers. Don’t greet your Savior that way either. You want to be ready—walking with Him, keeping your spiritual house in order.
Of course, there’s always the circus clowns with their calendars: “88 Reasons Jesus Will Return in 1988!” They were wrong, just like every other date-setter before or since. Jesus made it pretty clear: “No one knows the day or the hour.” Which, funnily enough, includes you, me, and that guy on YouTube with the chart and the whiteboard. The Rapture isn’t about prediction—it’s about preparation.
Excellent articles related to this provocative and very important topic?
“Those Who Reject The Rapture, Tribulation, Or Millennial Kingdom Perform A Great Disservice To The Body Of Christ” (Jonathan Brentner, Harbinger’s Daily)
“Examining Motivations: Why The Rapture’s Timing Truly Makes A Difference In The Christian Life” (Josh Davis, Harbinger’s Daily)
5) “Pope Leo XIV Defends Pro-Abortion Dem Senator, Says Those Opposed to Illegal Immigration Are Not ‘Pro-Life’” (Michael Schwarz, Western Journal)
From the article -- In a video posted to YouTube on Tuesday, a reporter from the Catholic television network EWTN asked Pope Leo XIV to help people of faith understand a decision by Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, to honor pro-abortion Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, to which the pope delivered a hideous, hypocritical reply.
On its face, the first part of the pontiff’s answer had some merit. “I think that it’s very important to look at the overall work that a senator has done during, if I’m not mistaken, 40 years of service in the United States Senate,” the pope said.
What came next, however, was downright appalling. “I understand the difficulty and the tensions,” he continued. “But I think, as I myself have spoken in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the church.” In other words, the pontiff suggested that “many issues,” alone or combined, might involve moral truths that match or exceed that of an innocent life’s sanctity. What issues did he have in mind?
“Someone who says, ‘I’m against abortion,’ but says, ‘I’m in favor of the death penalty,’ is not really pro-life,” the pope tragically insisted. “So,” he added, “someone who says that ‘I’m against abortion, but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States,’ I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”
Ugh.
As one would expect, conservative Catholics on the social media platform X rejected the pope’s claim of moral relativism. Moreover, they cited not their own preferences but the writings of past popes and theologians.
Other Important Reads of the Week:
* “The NFL’s Cultural Catechism: Bad Bunny and the War on Tradition” (Virgil Walker, Sola Veritas)
* “The Courage to Stand Alone in an Age of Cowards” (Maureen Steele, American Greatness)
* “From the League of Nations to the United Nations to Trump Global?” (Victor Davis Hanson, American Greatness)
* “Docs Knew Gender Science Was ‘Shoddy,’ But Pushed Chemical Sex Changes On Kids Anyway” (Megan Brock, Daily Caller)
* “Chirping for Chesimard”(Scott Johnson, Power Line)
