On October 27, Israel will hold its first national election since Hamas attacked just over three years ago. Given the ongoing war with Iran, the tenuous—at best—peace in Gaza, and the country’s ever-changing relationships with its neighboring nations, Tuesday’s vote could have massive implications for the future of the region. However, chances are good that Wednesday will come without much clarity as to who will be in charge.

You see, Israel’s election process is quite a bit different from what we have in America. Rather than voting for individuals, Israelis will cast their votes for one of an estimated thirty-eight parties in the running. To be part of the country’s parliament and get a voice in the government’s direction, a party has to get at least 3.25 percent of the votes. As of now, it’s estimated that around eleven will make the cut.

The final results are due by November 4, at which point the leading group typically gets the first shot at convincing enough of the other parties to support them to come away with a majority in the 120-seat delegation. I say typically because President Isaac Herzog technically gets to decide who gets the first chance, though it usually goes to the party that received the most votes.

Once that selection is made, the party will have twenty-eight days to form its coalition and reach a majority. If they fail, Herzog can either choose to give them an extra two weeks or move on to the next party.

The latest polls have the race neck-and-neck between Gadi Eisenkot’s “Yashar” party and current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “Likud” party. Both are projected to come in well below the necessary sixty-one-vote threshold, though, and neither has a clear path to get there. Still, when everything is finally decided, many expect the country will have someone new in charge.

Israel’s place in the world

Given the string of military successes Israel has had since the October 7 attacks, it may come as a surprise that Netanyahu faces an uphill battle to stay in control. However, as Bobby Miller describes, “Whatever else is on the ballot come October 27, Israelis are entitled to ask what has been done to ensure that such a catastrophe cannot happen again.” And, in that regard, the picture is cloudy at best.

Netanyahu has long maintained power by arguing that the key to Israel’s safety lies in its strength. After three years of war, few doubt Israel’s military power. Iran and its proxies have been reduced to something far more akin to Monty Python’s armless knight shouting “just a flesh wound” than the “existential” threat that existed before. However, there are open questions as to whether the nation is safer as a result.

In the years leading up to the October 7 attacks, Israel had been slowly making progress in normalizing its relationships with several of its key neighbors in the Middle East. Many believe that the invasion by Hamas was “intended to sabotage such talks” by forcing the rest of the Muslim world to choose between Israel and Gaza. They chose Gaza, and any further discussions were put on hold until the war reached its current truce.

Still, even before October 7, nations like Saudi Arabia were inching closer to normalizing relations with Israel because they feared Iran rather than because they genuinely wanted to be in an alliance with their Jewish neighbors. While Iran is not yet entirely defeated, and these nations continue to harbor no traces of goodwill toward it, its power has been reduced enough that it’s no longer seen as the same threat it once was. As a result, many of these countries have begun to look elsewhere for alliances and security.

Saudi Arabia, for example, recently signed an agreement with Turkey and Pakistan that’s modeled somewhat after NATO’s Article Five in that it’s a pact to defend one another against foreign aggression. The end result is that Israel is as isolated as they’ve been in some time.

They have some friendships, and it’s still possible that they’ll normalize relations with many of these countries over the coming years, but America continues to be the only other nation that seems heavily invested in defending Israel against its enemies, and even that relationship is less secure than it once was. That’s a troubling thought for many Israelis; one that could lead them to look in a new direction for leadership going forward.

How much do you need Jesus?

Although Gadi Eisenkot holds views similar to Netanyahu’s on Gaza, Hamas, Iran, and many other key issues, he has a good chance of winning simply because he is not Benjamin Netanyahu. To be clear, the outcome is far from certain. But it’s worth noting that their biggest differences are more about personality than policy, which could have an impact on rebuilding Israel’s reputation on the world stage.

And that’s a lesson we need to keep in mind as well.

As Christians, one of the most important truths we need to remember is that every action we take, and the manner in which we take it, reflects on our Lord. That doesn’t mean God expects us to be perfect—though that is the standard we’re called to aspire to (Matthew 5:48). But it does mean that we don’t get to take days off when it comes to living out our faith well.

I don’t know about you, but the 24/7 nature of the Christian walk can feel overwhelming at times. And it should. We’re not built for that kind of existence, and that’s on purpose.

God created us to need him in order to help us live every day in communion with him. He even gave us the Holy Spirit to help facilitate that relationship. But if your daily life does not require his help to live well, then it’s worth asking if you’ve set your sights too low. And one of the easiest ways to make that mistake is by keeping our faith a secret and our spiritual life firmly separated from everything else.

Our heavenly Father wants more for us and from us than that. We are called to live in such a way that when we interact with others, they will recognize that we have been with Jesus (Acts 4:13).

Will that be true for you today?

Quote of the day:

“The highest reward for a faithful life is not what you get for it but what you become by it.” —Warren Wiersbe

Our latest website resources:

• Ohio governor’s race roiled by attack ad against Democrat
• The unseen reality behind the Etsy witch phenomenon
• Election season special! Midterm cynicism, how to research candidates & voting wisely | Ep. 91
• The World Series is here! (Is an MLB lockout next?)
• Baseball and the Bible: Lessons on grace and perseverance

Denison Forum

According to the Wall Street Journal, “An attack ad against an Ohio Democrat featuring her estranged mother calling her a liar and unfit for office has roiled the state’s closely contested governor race.” The candidate, Dr. Amy Acton, has said her mother’s husband sexually abused her; she and her mother have been estranged since she was a child. Last Tuesday, her opponent, Vivek Ramaswamy, took responsibility for the ad.

Reaction has been strong on both sides. Former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, the Democratic nominee for Senate this fall, called the ad “disgusting.” His opponent, GOP Sen. Jon Husted, said, “I would not have run that ad.”

By contrast, Vice President JD Vance rebuked Republicans for “whining” about the ad, saying: “Politics is a tough business.” At a campaign rally in Ohio, he said the ad “calls it out like it is.” And Donald Trump Jr. posted, “Ohio watch this and think about what it means.”

There’s an old truism about politics that says you have to get elected to serve, so whatever it takes to do the former is warranted so long as you then do the latter. I’m certainly not endorsing this approach, and it remains to be seen whether the ad will work for or against its sponsoring campaign when all the votes are cast.

Of course, such transactionalism is not limited to politics. Any of us who aspire to something are likely to do what it takes to try to achieve it. And since we aspire to many different things, we adopt many different strategies for success. They are like masks we wear, each intended for the context in which it is being worn.

Behind such masking, an even more foundational process is at work. Psychologists say we all have an “idealized self,” the person we wish we were and want others to believe us to be. We then act to project this perfected person to the world.

This is wearying work. We wish we could be ourselves with everyone, but we fear they wouldn’t like us if we did.

Sacrificing to Mars before we go to war

The good news is that our Father already knows what’s behind our masks and loves us anyway. But it’s hard to believe this to be true since it’s not entirely true with anyone else we know.

For example, my wife’s love for me over our many decades of marriage is a daily marvel to me. Knowing myself as I know myself, I continue to be astonished that she loves me as she does. But if I were to have an affair or act in a way that harmed our children or grandchildren, I have to think that I would damage her heart for me. She might still love me, but she couldn’t love me in the same way. The same would be true of my family and friends, I presume.

It is only natural to apply this reality to our relationship with God. Unsurprisingly, the world’s religions function on an axis of transaction: if we do what God wants, he will do what we want.

When I led study tours to Ephesus, for example, we walked past the many altars that lined its main thoroughfare, each of them an invitation to do business with the deity it represented. If you’re going to war, you want to sacrifice to Mars so he will protect you in battle. If you need wisdom, Athena is your god; if you’re sailing, you want to placate Neptune beforehand.

So, it only makes sense to go to church on Sunday so God will bless you on Monday. Start the day with a “quiet time” with him so he will bless your day. Act with righteousness to be blessed by your righteous God.

Of course, this could only work if we were as sinless as the Lord whose favor we seek. If he is to bless our righteousness, he must punish our sinfulness. And we are back where we started, needing the help of a God whose help we cannot earn.

“I have loved you with an everlasting love”

The good news is that, unlike you and everyone you know, “God is love” (1 John 4:8). Love is his very nature, his essence, not just what he does but who he is. To put it a bit crudely, God loves you because he cannot help loving you. His nature requires him to love you.

There is, therefore, nothing you can do to make him love you any more or any less than he did when he sent his Son to the cross for you. He loves you as much as when he chose to create you. He loves you on earth as much as he will love you in heaven.

This is why he can say to his people, “I have loved you with an everlasting love” (Jeremiah 31:3a). There never was and will never be a time when his love for us changes, which is why he can add, “I have continued my faithfulness to you” (v. 3b).

The key is seeing ourselves as he sees us, remembering all through the day that we are God’s “Beloved,” as Henri Nouwen called us. We then respond by worshipping him, not so he will love us but because he already does. We serve him, not so that he will bless us, but because he already has. Our gratitude for his grace motivates all we do and liberates us to do it in love.

Someone wrote that he asked Jesus, “How much do you love me?” He responded, “I love you this much,” as he spread his arms wide on the cross and died.

He would do it all again, just for you.

Denison Forum

Why a baseball work stoppage is on the horizon, and a biblical view of the value of work

The World Series begins on Friday night between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Milwaukee Brewers, with the guarantee that one fanbase will experience the thrill of a first championship. The low-payroll clubs clash after boasting the best records in the sport. The intrigue is there, and we’d better cherish it because it may be the last of Major League Baseball that we see for a little while.

Baseball’s crown jewel event may get overshadowed by the strong likelihood of an imminent labor dispute. How did we get here?

Baseball is ingrained in the fabric of American culture. We use baseball idioms in regular conversation, perhaps without even realizing that’s where they derive from. Field of Dreams, The Sandlot, and Moneyball headline a lengthy list of influential feature films centered around America’s Pastime.

Major League Baseball, in particular, has left its mark on Civil Rights, American cuisine, and the rest of professional sports. Yet, despite its pioneering journey, it began to fade into the shadows in recent generations.

After a lull in its prominence, MLB has experienced its own sort of renaissance in recent years. The introduction of a pitch clock, the emergence of international superstars, and efforts to reach younger fans are all paying off. Television ratings and ticket sales have surged.

However, all that progress may soon be down the drain as MLB’s future looms uncertain, with a lockout likely to begin when the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between owners and players expires on December 1st.

Why a lockout?

The 2027 season is set to open on March 24th, but that is beginning to seem optimistic. It feels like baseball has only recently completed its PR recovery from the disaster of the 1994 players’ strike that cost fans a half-season and an entire postseason.

While the league locking out the players may be a foregone conclusion at this point, how long the siege persists depends on several factors.

The primary topic of concern is the creation of a “salary cap.” MLB is on an island of its own without one. The NBA, NHL, and NFL each introduced a cap decades ago. Now, baseball franchise owners are hoping to enact one.

Owners desire to strengthen the sport’s competitive balance and increase the value of their franchises. The sport’s resurgence could continue with financial predictability and stability.

But the players’ union has vowed never to agree to a cap. To the union, the cap is just a path for owners to artificially reduce player values and squeeze control of the free-agent market to line their own pockets.

The initial league proposal is for a $245.3 million cap and a mandatory floor of $171.2 million. Just ten teams opened the 2026 season with payrolls in that range–twelve were below, and eight were above.

Mark Feinsand, for MLB.com, points to other leagues to argue that the floor would increase spending and directly benefit player compensation. Feinsand also notes overwhelming fan support for creating a cap.

The fuller picture

With the Brewers and Rays as the last two standing this year, the Fall Classic will be between two bottom-half payroll teams. Experts are curious if this might change the dynamic at the negotiating table. Both players and league owners desire public support, and small-market teams finding postseason success does not fit the league’s narrative.

Following the elimination of the two-time reigning champion, big-market, high-payroll Dodgers, Ryan Glasspiegel of Front Office Sports shared his perspective on X: “Hard to see how MLB could credibly lock players out for months or longer over competitive balance issues now. . .Brewers might have saved the sport.”

From 2021 to 2025, nine out of ten World Series participants were top-half payroll teams, and the most recent “small-market” team to win was the 2015 Royals. While 2026 is flipping that script, it is certainly more of an exception than a norm. Perhaps the timing of the exception will prove significant.

If the lockout carries deep into the spring, actual baseball games will vanish from the calendar. 60 games is seen as a potential breaking point, according to The Athletic. Missing 60 games means the current media rights will be extended by a year, and importantly, “the big payday owners expect from new national TV rights deals could wind up delayed by a lockout.”

The league is eagerly eyeing the prospect of new television contracts for 2029 as an opportunity to make everyone richer (see the NBA’s most recent media rights deal). Owners may not be willing to postpone such a significant pay increase. Plus, if the lockout drags into a 1994-like PR disaster with fans, the league’s media value will tank.

Canceling games will come with other casualties, like ticket revenue, concessions, sponsorships, and merchandise sales as well. Each side has prepared by stockpiling a “warchest” for years in anticipation of this day.

As December 1st nears, MLB revealed plans to use the new CBA as an opportunity to revamp the sport’s calendar. The primary changes include reducing the season from 162 to 154 games, implementing a guaranteed weekly off day, and expanding the early postseason rounds. Such changes are widely viewed as beneficial to owners and players, but they come with a catch…a salary cap.

As with our recent examination of college football’s current challenges, it’s all about the money for baseball. As billionaire owners bicker back and forth with millionaire players, avid fans will wait in disappointment, and casual fans will simply disappear if games are not played.

Working is redemptive

Lockouts in professional sports are far from unprecedented. Every time a significant work stoppage like this is anticipated, I am reminded of God’s view of work, outlined in Scripture. Work is a blessing and should be treated as such.

God gave Adam work in the Garden, before the Fall (Gen. 2:15). Paul describes work as a service to the Lord, not to man (Col. 3:23-24). Scripture also speaks harshly against laziness (Prov. 10:4), idleness (2 Thess. 3:10), and greed (Ecc. 5:10)—all temptations for the person that “works” from a self-serving heart.

A great many athletes and league officials love their work and are passionate about what they do, but others are just there for the paycheck. It is hard for the average spectator to sympathize with the plight of players or owners when it all feels so greedy. Yet, the greed that influences decisions in ballpark front offices also influences decisions in workplaces of all shapes and sizes.

Our culture has degraded the value of work to a transactional segment of our lives, typically seen as separate from the personal and spiritual parts of ourselves. At best, work may be about our personal passions and goals. More commonly, work is simply a means to get rich or to be known, and if it does not produce those desired outcomes, we either leverage it for what we want or pull the plug and move on.

But work, whether a paid job or the efforts we pour into everything else in life, was never meant to be about us. Work is a form of stewardship. God has entrusted each of us with skills, time, and opportunities. Our responsibility is to use what he has provided for his glory, whether in a dream job or a “dead-end” job.

If the biblical worldview of work took root in the hearts of athletes and team owners, perhaps we wouldn’t be here waiting on a lockout. If it took root in the hearts of folks in Silicon Valley or on Capitol Hill, perhaps the country, and even the world, would look different.

But what if, first and foremost, the biblical worldview of work took root in your heart and the hearts of those you work with? Perhaps a newfound contentment and joy will emerge as you bring glory to Christ in your working efforts.

Denison Forum