With the election finished and the Republicans in control of both the presidency and Congress, much of the national attention has shifted to what the government will look like going forward. To that end, President-elect Donald Trump’s picks to fill out his administration have led the news in recent days.

Most of his early picks garnered praise—or at least acceptance—by the bulk of his fellow Republicans. However, more recent selections like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the US Health and Human Services leader, Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, and Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense have been a bit more controversial. Yet each of their paths to office looks simple when compared with Matt Gaetz—Trump’s choice for attorney general.

Shortly after news broke that Gaetz would be Trump’s pick for AG, he resigned from the House, where he’d served as the representative for Florida’s 1^st congressional district since 2017, which some have seen as a sign of confidence that he will be approved for the position. Yet, Gaetz’s resignation also means that he’s no longer under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee, which was mere days away from releasing the report of their investigation into Gaetz on allegations of sexual misconduct, illicit drug use, and a number of other accusations.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn—one of the party’s leading figures and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee—has since spoken for many in arguing that the report should be part of the deliberations into whether Gaetz will be approved for the post of attorney general.

Concerns that his preferred choices will not be approved could be part of why, earlier this week, Trump urged Senate leaders to be willing to agree to recess appointments in order to expedite the process.

But what are recess appointments, and why has the notion proved so controversial in recent days?

What are recess appointments?

Recess appointments are a constitutional provision that allows the president to appoint officials without Senate approval while the congressional body is not in session. In the nation’s early days, it could take senators weeks to travel to Congress, and the legislature would only meet for a short period of time before going into recess. In that environment, it made sense to give the president the authority to make appointments on his own when the situation warranted a quick decision.

But despite the circumstances being drastically different in modern times than in the late 1700s, recess appointments continued to be a tool used by both Republican and Democratic presidents to circumvent the Senate. That began to change, however, in 2014 when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that President Obama had stepped beyond his authority in recess-appointing four members of the National Labor Relations Board. Justice Antonin Scalia went so far as to say the practice’s “only remaining use is the ignoble one of enabling the President to circumvent the Senate’s role.”

The Court also set a ten-day minimum for how long the Senate would need to be in recess before any such appointments could be made without their approval. Ever since, the Senate has routinely scheduled “pro forma” sessions every few days during recess periods. Pro forma sessions are where a single representative will show up for a few minutes to start a session before then closing it without doing anything.

So while it is within Trump’s authority to ask the Senate to go on recess, actually taking that route seems unlikely.

To start, it would mean essentially shutting down the legislature for at least eleven days at the start of his presidency, thereby limiting how much he could accomplish in his first weeks back in office. Moreover, at least fifty senators would have to agree to go into an extended recess in order to clear the way for him to be able to make recess appointments. Considering that’s the same number needed to simply approve his recommended candidates, the most likely scenario is that his call for recess appointments was more of an attempt to set the tone for the next four years.

While there is some merit to establishing that precedent early, if Trump attempts to proceed with his insistence on recess appointments, he may also learn that what can be done and what should be done are not always the same. And that’s a lesson that each of us would do well to remember, particularly when it comes to our relationship with God.

Pursuing a life God can bless

The difference between “Can I do this?” and “Should I do this?” may seem subtle, but what it reveals about our focus and frame of mind is often quite telling. For example, if I finish dinner and see ice cream in the freezer, I’m far more likely to ask, “Can I have some?” than “Should I have some?” In that circumstance, whether or not it’s best for me to have a delicious dessert matters far less than if I can get away with eating one.

While that’s a relatively minor example, the principle is important to recognize. And that’s particularly the case when we’re asking the question of God, as it reveals whether our focus is more on what we want or what he wants for us.

You see, in most circumstances, there are multiple choices we could make that will not necessarily put us outside of God’s will or lead us into sin. However, just because God doesn’t punish us for the choice doesn’t mean that he will bless it.

One of the primary temptations we face as Christians is to settle for living in God’s permissive will rather than striving for a life he can actively bless.

It’s easy to think that, so long as I’m not sinning, I must be doing the right thing. But God wants far more for us. He wants us to live a life that he can bless, but that means asking him what we should do rather than what we can do. It means prioritizing what he wants for us over what we want for ourselves. And it means learning to rely upon his guidance in every facet of our lives rather than just those we’re comfortable surrendering to him.

So which question will you ask of God today? Will you settle for what you can do, or pursue what the Lord says you should do?

The decision is yours. Choose wisely.

Friday news to know:

• Federal judge blocks enforcement of Louisiana’s Ten Commandments Law
• Congress holds another hearing about UFOs
• Florida sues FEMA for skipping Trump supporters when offering aid.
• Tech company creates AI grandma to keep phone scammers preoccupied
• On this day in 1988: Yasser Arafat and the Palestine National Council declare independence for a Palestinian state

*Denison Forum does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in these stories.

Quote of the day:

“God never gave a man a thing to do, concerning which it were irreverent to ponder how the Son of God would have done it.” —George Macdonald

Denison Forum

With the election finished and the Republicans in control of both the presidency and Congress, much of the national attention has shifted to what the government will look like going forward. To that end, President-elect Donald Trump’s picks to fill out his administration have led the news in recent days.

Most of his early picks garnered praise—or at least acceptance—by the bulk of his fellow Republicans. However, more recent selections like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the US Health and Human Services leader, Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, and Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense have been a bit more controversial. Yet each of their paths to office looks simple when compared with Matt Gaetz—Trump’s choice for attorney general.

Shortly after news broke that Gaetz would be Trump’s pick for AG, he resigned from the House, where he’d served as the representative for Florida’s 1^st congressional district since 2017, which some have seen as a sign of confidence that he will be approved for the position. Yet, Gaetz’s resignation also means that he’s no longer under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee, which was mere days away from releasing the report of their investigation into Gaetz on allegations of sexual misconduct, illicit drug use, and a number of other accusations.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn—one of the party’s leading figures and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee—has since spoken for many in arguing that the report should be part of the deliberations into whether Gaetz will be approved for the post of attorney general.

Concerns that his preferred choices will not be approved could be part of why, earlier this week, Trump urged Senate leaders to be willing to agree to recess appointments in order to expedite the process.

But what are recess appointments, and why has the notion proved so controversial in recent days?

What are recess appointments?

Recess appointments are a constitutional provision that allows the president to appoint officials without Senate approval while the congressional body is not in session. In the nation’s early days, it could take senators weeks to travel to Congress, and the legislature would only meet for a short period of time before going into recess. In that environment, it made sense to give the president the authority to make appointments on his own when the situation warranted a quick decision.

But despite the circumstances being drastically different in modern times than in the late 1700s, recess appointments continued to be a tool used by both Republican and Democratic presidents to circumvent the Senate. That began to change, however, in 2014 when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that President Obama had stepped beyond his authority in recess-appointing four members of the National Labor Relations Board. Justice Antonin Scalia went so far as to say the practice’s “only remaining use is the ignoble one of enabling the President to circumvent the Senate’s role.”

The Court also set a ten-day minimum for how long the Senate would need to be in recess before any such appointments could be made without their approval. Ever since, the Senate has routinely scheduled “pro forma” sessions every few days during recess periods. Pro forma sessions are where a single representative will show up for a few minutes to start a session before then closing it without doing anything.

So while it is within Trump’s authority to ask the Senate to go on recess, actually taking that route seems unlikely.

To start, it would mean essentially shutting down the legislature for at least eleven days at the start of his presidency, thereby limiting how much he could accomplish in his first weeks back in office. Moreover, at least fifty senators would have to agree to go into an extended recess in order to clear the way for him to be able to make recess appointments. Considering that’s the same number needed to simply approve his recommended candidates, the most likely scenario is that his call for recess appointments was more of an attempt to set the tone for the next four years.

While there is some merit to establishing that precedent early, if Trump attempts to proceed with his insistence on recess appointments, he may also learn that what can be done and what should be done are not always the same. And that’s a lesson that each of us would do well to remember, particularly when it comes to our relationship with God.

Pursuing a life God can bless

The difference between “Can I do this?” and “Should I do this?” may seem subtle, but what it reveals about our focus and frame of mind is often quite telling. For example, if I finish dinner and see ice cream in the freezer, I’m far more likely to ask, “Can I have some?” than “Should I have some?” In that circumstance, whether or not it’s best for me to have a delicious dessert matters far less than if I can get away with eating one.

While that’s a relatively minor example, the principle is important to recognize. And that’s particularly the case when we’re asking the question of God, as it reveals whether our focus is more on what we want or what he wants for us.

You see, in most circumstances, there are multiple choices we could make that will not necessarily put us outside of God’s will or lead us into sin. However, just because God doesn’t punish us for the choice doesn’t mean that he will bless it.

One of the primary temptations we face as Christians is to settle for living in God’s permissive will rather than striving for a life he can actively bless.

It’s easy to think that, so long as I’m not sinning, I must be doing the right thing. But God wants far more for us. He wants us to live a life that he can bless, but that means asking him what we should do rather than what we can do. It means prioritizing what he wants for us over what we want for ourselves. And it means learning to rely upon his guidance in every facet of our lives rather than just those we’re comfortable surrendering to him.

So which question will you ask of God today? Will you settle for what you can do, or pursue what the Lord says you should do?

The decision is yours. Choose wisely.

Friday news to know:

• Federal judge blocks enforcement of Louisiana’s Ten Commandments Law
• Congress holds another hearing about UFOs
• Florida sues FEMA for skipping Trump supporters when offering aid.
• Tech company creates AI grandma to keep phone scammers preoccupied
• On this day in 1988: Yasser Arafat and the Palestine National Council declare independence for a Palestinian state

*Denison Forum does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in these stories.

Quote of the day:

“God never gave a man a thing to do, concerning which it were irreverent to ponder how the Son of God would have done it.” —George Macdonald

Denison Forum

Redeeming the crises of our day with transforming hope

If you’re in need of some advice or encouragement, you might consider visiting the Grandma Stand, a mobile station in New York City. Here you’ll be able to talk with a real grandmother ready to listen to your troubles and offer timely wisdom.

Today’s news offers much to discuss:

• Chinese officials are discussing the weaponizing of viruses far deadlier than COVID-19 to be used for “specific ethnic genetic attacks.”
• Multiple climate disasters have triggered the first-ever Red Cross disaster insurance payout.
• Henry Kissinger and his co-authors are warning that “AI can save humanity—or end it.”
• Iranian leaders, panicked over the election of Donald Trump and the success of Israel’s recent attacks, may push to develop nuclear weapons.

Various populations across the centuries have faced crises that threatened their future. But now, for the first time in human history, humans have the capacity to end human history.

• Weaponized viruses could conceivably spread beyond containment and destroy our species.
• The UN leader warns that climate disasters could render our planet uninhabitable.
• Artificial intelligence could become sentient, determine humans to be a threat to itself, and take measures to wipe us out.
• Nuclear weapons have been in existence for generations, but they were controlled by nations deterred by “mutually assured destruction”—if one launched on the other, the other would retaliate in ways that would destroy the instigator. But some Islamic theologians claim that if Iran attacked Israel and its collaborators in the West, their Mahdi (a messianic figure) would then reappear to protect Muslims. And autocrats in China and Russia may consider the deaths of millions of their people to be a price worth paying to achieve global hegemony for themselves and their empires.

Why would God allow such unprecedented existential challenges?

How would he redeem them for his glory and our good?

Both questions lead to the same hope.

The higher the mountain, the harder the climb

It is endemic to our fallen human nature to trust our fallen human nature. Our “will to power” drives us to try harder and work longer to overcome any obstacle we face.

We draw inspiration from calls to action such as Theodore Roosevelt’s stirring praise for “the man who is actually in the arena . . .  who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.”

The higher the mountain, the harder the climb but the greater the reward. Or so we tell ourselves.

But what if Oswald Chambers was right to assert, “Holiness, not happiness, is the chief end of man”?

What if the Westminster Shorter Catechism is correct when it claims, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever”?

What if the challenges of our world are therefore intended by our Maker to draw us from self-sufficiency to Spirit-dependence?

We could then conclude that if we will not trust God with our small challenges, he must allow us to face dangers so cataclysmic that we must abandon our self-reliance and admit that we are “so far down we can look nowhere but up.”

A hinge point in history

Seen in this light, the gravest problems we face are worth their cost if they motivate us to submit to the One who alone can make our lives eternally significant. Ten thousand millennia after the last election has been held, the last war has been fought, and the last article has been written, eternity will only have begun.

But there’s more: Not only does God want to use our existential threats to draw us to himself—he then wants us to seek his omniscience and omnipotence in facing them together. He is a loving Father who cares not only about our eternal souls but also our temporal lives.

To illustrate: Jesus healed so many bodies during his earthly ministry that he is often called the “Great Physician.” Such healings frequently led to spiritual outcomes, such as the man born blind who received his sight and then worshiped him as Lord (John 9:38). But some of his miracles had no such recorded outcomes.

For example, after Jesus healed a man’s withered hand, “the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him” (Matthew 12:14). When he healed a blind man, “he sent him to his home” with no apparent spiritual results (Mark 8:22–26).

I say this to make the point that our Lord cares deeply about the crises we face, from viruses to climate challenges to the future of AI to geopolitical nuclear threats. He has wisdom we cannot begin to comprehend and power we cannot begin to match.

I therefore believe that future historians (if mankind survives long enough) will point to these days as a crucial hinge point in history—a time when we turned to the King of the universe in a great spiritual and moral awakening, or the time when our society’s ongoing spiritual and moral collapse began spiraling to a grievous end.

“He is no fool”

If America is to choose the first before it’s too late, Christians like you and me must lead the way. We must repent of self-reliant idolatry that uses spiritual means to achieve selfish ends. We must instead submit our lives unconditionally to the will and Spirit of God (Romans 12:1–2; Ephesians 5:18), remembering with the martyred missionary Jim Elliot that “he is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”

The more passionately you “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” the more your Father can ensure that everything else “will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).

The Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli wrote:

“Never waste the opportunity offered by a good crisis.”

Will you heed his advice today?

NOTE: For more encouragement to trust God’s power and love, I invite you to read my new website article, “’Nature’s Best Photography Awards’ and grandeur in the sky: What creation tells America about our Creator.”

Thursday news to know:

• Trump nominates Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz for attorney general in surprise pick
• Thune wins contested race for Senate GOP leader
• Mike Johnson wins GOP nod to remain House speaker with Trump’s backing
• Republicans win House, delivering Trump a trifecta
• On this day in 1914: Ottoman Empire declares a holy war

*Denison Forum does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in these stories.

Quote for the day:

“If our lives are easy, and if all we ever attempt for God is what we know we can handle, how will we ever experience his omnipotence in our lives?” —Anne Graham Lotz

Denison Forum