Ethan Bogan

Husband, Father, Pastor | “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.”

[DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican]

Hello Mrs. Owens,

You told millions of people that Tyler Robinson "wasn't even there." That you felt "confident stating that Tyler Robinson did not kill murder Charlie Kirk."

He was on camera. Prone on the Losi rooftop at 12:22. Shot at 12:23:28. DNA on the screwdriver at 30 quintillion to one. DNA on the rifle at 1.7 octillion to one. He told his family what he did. His parents helped him surrender. He texted his roommate: "I am, I'm sorry." He engraved "Hey Fascist! Catch!" on the ammunition a month before he used it.

You said police "didn't even question" Lance Twiggs. He was interviewed twice. FBI the morning after. Joint state-federal team seven months later. His own attorney. Voluntary phone surrender. You laughed when you said it.

You told Shawn Ryan a shaped charge killed Charlie. That PETN was in his microphone. The medical examiner says gunshot wound. Bullet fragments were recovered from his body. A .30-06 Mauser with Robinson's DNA was found in the woods. Neither side — not prosecution, not defense — has mentioned explosives. Not once in four days.

You said the shot came from below. The Losi building is above the amphitheater.

You called Erika Kirk a "clinical psychopath" to an audience of millions. You said the assassination was "an occult ritual." You said Charlie was "sitting in a pentagram." You told people Israel killed him because he refused Netanyahu.

You made over a hundred episodes. You built a franchise on a dead man's name.

And the hardest fact of all: Tyler Robinson's own defense lawyers — the people whose entire career is on the line to get him acquitted — have refused to make a single one of your arguments. Not one. They're challenging DNA methodology. They are doing their jobs. You were doing something else entirely.

Charlie Kirk changed my life. He platformed my work when nobody knew who I was. He had my back when I was doxxed. I was the ten-thousandth most important person in his world and I will never be able to repay him.

So I did what I know how to do. I read every transcript. I watched every hour of testimony. I cataloged your claims and I held them up against what was said under oath.

Every single one failed.

I don't know why you did this. I'm not going to speculate on your motives, because that would make me exactly the kind of analyst I've spent my career refusing to be. But I know what you did. You told people confident lies about a dead man's murder, and millions of them believed you, and some of them turned that belief into threats against his widow.

The trial continues. And every day of sworn testimony is another day your words get tested against reality... under oath, on the record, where it counts.

I'll be here for all of it... because just as Charlie defended me, I will do what little I can to defend his legacy and @TPUSA and @MrsErikaKirk from evil.

[Ryan Visconti @ryanvisconti]

A pastor is responsible to teach his congregation to love the following:

1. Jesus
2. Their own families
3. Their own local church
4. Their own nation
5. The poor, strangers, and enemies

The order of priority for numbers 3 and 4 is debatable, but the rest is not. We are not infinite. We cannot love everyone equally, in the same way, at the same time. Love must be rightly ordered.

Augustine gave classic expression to this concept in what is often called “ordo amoris” — the order of love.

“Progressive Christians” may agree that we should love Jesus first, (though often not to the exclusion of the false gods of other religions).

Then they would tell you to love the poor, strangers, and enemies second — even to the detriment of your own family (because they usually care more about virtue signaling than actual justice).

Then they would tell you to resent your nation and feel ashamed of it.

And lastly, they would encourage you to leave the local church, deconstruct your faith, and hate “organized religion.”

The real problem is not merely that “Progressive Christianity” is not true Christianity. The deeper problem is how many genuine Christians are unknowingly influenced and deceived into adopting unbiblical progressive ideas today.

Common symptoms include:

1. Feeling awkward about calling other religions false
2. Feeling embarrassed by their own nation — obsessing over its handful of weaknesses while overlooking its mountains of greatness
3. Becoming confused about cultural issues like immigration, welfare, and socialism
4. Failing to grasp the importance of local church community, service, and accountability

A good pastor will teach his congregation how to love practically, faithfully, and in the right order.

Fair warning: doing this will get a pastor labeled “legalistic,” “arrogant,” “political,” “Christian nationalist,” “mean,” “racist,” and every other scare-label meant to intimidate one away from being faithful.

That’s okay.

Do it anyway.

[Joel Berry @JoelWBerry]

I was raised learning the Bible. In adulthood, I began to go back and read the literary classics, only to find every great work was a shadow of the scriptures.

The Bible is the DNA, the source code of the West. People who don't know the Bible don't understand America.

[Ethan Bogan @ethanlbogan]

"We need to recover an offensive Christianity in which the natural characteristics of men are not diminished but directed toward their proper end. We need men capable of aggression, assertiveness, and self-defense who are submitted to Christ. If we are unable to conceive of an offensive Christianity, which gives no ground to the enemy, doesn't cater to communists, and exercises agency after God's glory, we will be ceding the battlefield to those who lack the requisite virtue to govern God's world according to His Word" (33, emphasis added).

Offensive Christianity is indeed "the culmination of a lifetime of older and wiser men who have knowingly and unknowingly invested" (xxi), for truly the same Spirit—who humbled the hardest hearts of men, who molded the greatest of minds, who raised up the mightiest of voices, and who strengthened and equipped courageous warriors—is now seen in yet another link in a generational chain of men who by faith gained approval (Heb. 11:2).

While @jchasedavis masterfully addresses the root causes which have led to the emasculation of Christian men, he simultaneously refuses to remain pessimistically fixated on past mistakes, urging men instead to move forward through a rejection of apathy and a confident embrace of agency, both individual and collective. Our Lord Jesus did not commend the "careful" servant, nor did He commend the "successful" servant. He commended the faithful servant (Matt. 25:23), and there remains both incredible grace and tremendous responsibility in such a characteristic that is recognized by our Savior. For faithfulness is by definition action, not mere intellectual assent. Christian men cannot consider "their responsibility in solely immaterial terms" (5) and are therefore called to meekness: utilizing God-given strength under the control of Jesus Christ in every sphere of influence they are placed in.

It is here—the pursuit and encouragement of meekness—that the modern evangelical church has largely failed, for, as @j_bambrick points out, "Today's evangelical pastors are typically women of both sexes." Rather than leading the church under the authority of the Chief Shepherd with the confidence that "the gates of Hades will not overpower it" (Matt. 16:18), such "shepherds" have sought to please men, rather than accepting their role as bond-servants of Christ (Gal. 1:10). Lacking testicular fortitude and attempting to make the gospel "palatable", they have allowed evil ideas to prevail, and through their silence they participate in them.

However, in pursuit of this worldly ambition, such men have failed to understand that "should the church fail to address these issues biblically and cogently, with courage, then those who are interested in stopping the wickedness in our world will invariably find voices outside the church to justify any manner of action to resist it. Strength will return, but it will be anything but Christian" (33).

May this book serve as a clarion call for all men to direct their God-given masculinity toward its proper end as they seek to protect, provide, and preserve for posterity to the glory of God.

A huge thank you to @Maxwell_pringle who graciously gifted me a copy of this book.

*This review was written voluntarily and reflects my own personal opinions. It does not necessarily represent the views of the author or any other individual.

[Ethan Bogan @ethanlbogan]

@Maxwell_pringle @jchasedavis @FoundersMin @charitymurrell

[Max Pringle | Iowa Crossroad @Maxwell_pringle]

Win a FREE copy of “Offensive Christianity” by my friend J. Chase Davis. 2 winners will be selected ahead of Father’s Day.

To enter: like + repost, & tag someone below. Picking 2 winners on 6/1.

Be sure to follow @JChaseDavis and @Maxwell_Pringle

[Seth Gruber @sgruber91]

The fundamental issue with this debate over criminalizing abortion in red states is one of discipleship.

If we say that a woman who knowingly and willfully kills her child is not answerable for murder and should face no consequences, we are simply encouraging the society to kill their children.

If we support her legal immunity to kill her child because she has been indoctrinated by the culture to view abortion as empowerment and a "right," then she and the aborting father have no reason to seek to improve themselves.

If society can always be blamed, then the individual is never responsible.

“If you adopt the view that a man is not responsible for his own behavior, that somehow society is responsible, why should he seek to make his behavior good?”
— Milton Friedman

[Ethan Bogan @ethanlbogan]

@JoshuaBarzon @Markins @charitymurrell

[Josh Barzon @JoshuaBarzon]

Win a FREE copy of “Daddy, How Much Do You Love Me?” by my friend Matt Markins. We are picking 10 winners ahead of Father’s Day.

To enter: Follow @JoshuaBarzon and @Markins , like + repost, & tag someone below.

Picking 10 winners on 5/28. 📖 🎁

[Ethan Bogan @ethanlbogan]

@Founders_Press @charitymurrell

[Founders Press @Founders_Press]

Founders Press began 30 years ago this year! We are so thankful to the Lord for how He has sustained us and blessed our efforts over the last three decades.

To celebrate 30 years of publishing, we will be offering many giveaways over the next few weeks! Make sure you’re following our new Founders Press social media pages to not miss your chance to win FREE resources.

First up…

📚 GIVEAWAY: CONFESSIONAL BUNDLE

Three winners will receive:
- The 1689 Confession in Modern English
- Baptist Symbolics Volume 1 & 2
- 1689 Bookmark
- 1689 Coffee Mug

To enter:

- Follow @Founders_Press.
- Share this post.
- Comment below tagging 1 friend.

Giveaway will close Monday, May 25th at 11:59 PM ET. Winners will be randomly chosen and contacted next week via private DM.

🚨 We will only contact you from THIS account. Beware of fraudulent accounts claiming to be Founders Press or Founders Ministries. All accounts asking you to sign up, open links, or pay for entrance for this giveaway are fraudulent.

🚨 This giveaway is only open to participants aged 18+ with a mailing address in the contiguous United States ONLY. Giveaway will close Monday, May 25th at 11:59 PM ET.

[Ethan Bogan @ethanlbogan]

@JoshuaBarzon @crossway @charitymurrell

[Josh Barzon @JoshuaBarzon]

Want to win a FREE premium leather ESV? My friends at @crossway have partnered with https://t.co/mWQizt9bTW to give away this stunning ESV Veritas ($350 value) from their redesigned Bible line.

To enter: Follow @JoshuaBarzon, like + repost, & tag someone below.

Ends on 5/15.

[Max 📟 @MaxNordau]

7 things every kid needs to hear:
1. I love you
2. I’m proud of you
3. I’m sorry
4. I forgive you
5. I’m listening
6. Communism has failed every time it was tried
7. You’ve got what it takes

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

Gay surrogacy and gay adoption are predicated on the idea that gay men (or women) have a “right” to become parents. This idea is not only morally insane but also logically incoherent. It’s exactly like jumping off a building and claiming that you have the right to fly. Nobody has the right to defy the laws of nature. Where would such a right even originate? Two men cannot be parents. It’s impossible. Doesn’t matter how they feel or what they want. It cannot be. The only “right” at issue here is the right of the child. And the child has a right to be raised by a mother and a father, not two men masquerading as mother and father.

[Katy Faust @Katy_Faust]

“He’s five months old. He doesn’t understand English.”

Right.

The baby understands something deeper.

Why is it that “mama” (or some version of it) shows up in nearly every language on earth? Chinese, Arabic, Spanish. Cultures separated by continents, histories, and entirely different linguistic families — and yet they all landed on the same sound for the same person?

That’s not coincidence. That’s anthropology.

“Ma” is one of the very first sounds a baby can make. It’s the natural position of the mouth during nursing. Long before a child understands words, he forms that sound. And who answers?

Across time, across cultures, across civilizations it is the woman who carried him, the woman whose body he knows.

Humanity didn’t invent “mama.” We recognized it.

So no, he doesn’t understand English.
But he does understand that something (or someone) is missing.

And what makes that video so disturbing isn’t just the cruelty of laughing at a distressed baby. It’s the denial of the human non-negotiable that children come from, and are made for, a mother.

They can mock the baby's babbling. But the can't erase the reality it points to.

That baby isn’t confused. The gay men are.

[M.A. Rothman @MichaelARothman]

𝐍𝐎, 𝐈𝐓'𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀𝐈. 𝐈𝐓'𝐒 𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐔𝐍𝐂𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍.

I see it constantly now. Someone reads a post or an article and spots an em dash — that long horizontal line — and immediately declares it was written by AI. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐚𝐬𝐡, 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐆𝐏𝐓. You know who else uses em dashes? People who actually learned how English punctuation works.

I don't normally step on this particular soapbox — and I commit authorial malpractice by never trying to sell you my books — but I've authored over 30 of them. Many have been international bestsellers. Well over 𝟏,𝟎𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 in print, translated into 7+ languages, sold around the world. I am, amongst many other things, an actual author. So let me give you a quick education your grammar teachers apparently skipped.

The em dash — this thing right here — is one of the most versatile punctuation marks in the English language. It's called an "em dash" because in traditional typesetting, it was the width of the capital letter M in whatever typeface you were using. It serves three primary functions. First, it sets off a parenthetical statement within a sentence — like this one — when you want more emphasis than commas provide but less formality than parentheses. Second, it signals an abrupt break in thought or a dramatic pivot. Third, it introduces an explanation or amplification of what came before it. Writers have been using it for centuries. Emily Dickinson used em dashes so obsessively her manuscripts look like they were attacked by a horizontal line. Mark Twain used them constantly in dialogue. So did F. Scott Fitzgerald. None of them had access to ChatGPT.

Now for a bit of trivia most people never learn. There's also an 𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐬𝐡 — slightly shorter, the width of the letter N. The en dash has a narrower purpose: it connects ranges. Pages 12–44. The years 1941–1945. The New York–London flight. It's the dash between two things that are connected but distinct. Most people have never heard of it, and most fonts render it just barely shorter than an em dash, which is why almost nobody notices the difference.

Both have been part of formal typography since the invention of movable type in the 15th century. Gutenberg's typesetters used varying dash lengths to organize text. By the 18th century, printers had standardized the em and en dash as distinct glyphs with distinct grammatical functions. This isn't some modern AI invention — it's older than the United States.

And if you use Microsoft Word, they're trivially easy to type. An en dash is Ctrl + Minus on the numeric keypad. An em dash is Ctrl + Alt + Minus on the numeric keypad. Word also auto-converts two hyphens (--) into an em dash if you have autocorrect enabled. That's why you see me use them in my books and in my posts — because I know they exist and I know the keyboard shortcut.

The reason AI chatbots use em dashes frequently is because they were trained on well-written text — books, journalism, academic papers — written by people who knew the rules. The AI learned proper punctuation from proper writers. That doesn't make proper punctuation a sign of AI. It makes it a sign of 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲.

For the record, the only things I use AI for are conjuring up a quick graphic — like the image on this post — or as a shortcut for preliminary research. Think of it as a Google accelerator. The writing? That's all me. It has been for 30+ books and countless social media posts such as this one.

If you've reached the end of this post, you now know more about dashes than most people who graduated with an English degree. And the next time you see an em dash and your first instinct is to scream "AI" — maybe consider that what you're actually looking at is someone who paid attention in class. Or someone whose grammar teachers didn't fail them quite as badly as yours failed you.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐚𝐬𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝟓𝟎𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐬.

[Ethan Bogan @ethanlbogan]

@JoshuaBarzon @WesleyLHuff @charitymurrell

[Josh Barzon @JoshuaBarzon]

🚨 COOLEST GIVEAWAY EVER! 📜

I am giving away one of @WesleyLHuff ’s P52 New Testament Manuscript Replicas.

Entering is simple. Just…

• Follow @JoshuaBarzon & @WesleyLHuff
• Like & Share the post
• Tag someone below

I’ll pick the winner a week from today on 4/17/26.