“Someone will read somewhere that George Foreman put God first”

George Foreman, the two-time heavyweight boxing champion of the world, died Friday night at the age of seventy-six. If this was all you knew about him, you didn’t know what mattered most to him.

Note the priorities of his life as described by his family at his death:

A devout preacher, a devoted husband, a loving father and a proud grand- and great-grandfather, he lived a life marked by unwavering faith, humility, and purpose. A humanitarian, an Olympian and two-time heavyweight champion of the world, he was deeply respected.

However, few would have imagined such a life and legacy when he was growing up in my hometown of Houston.

“I don’t want your money, I want you”

By his own admission, Foreman was a troubled youth. He dropped out of school at the age of fifteen and spent time as a mugger. The next year, he had a change of heart and convinced his mother to sign him up for Job Corps after seeing an ad for the Corps on television. He earned his GED and tried to become a carpenter and bricklayer before finding boxing.

Foreman won a gold medal at the 1968 Mexico City Olympic Games and said later this was the achievement of which he was most proud in his boxing career. He went on to defeat Joe Frazier to become the world heavyweight boxing champion.

I was one of millions who watched his shocking loss to Muhammad Ali on television the next year. Most people thought he would win easily, but the aging Ali’s now-famous “rope-a-dope” strategy depleted Foreman’s formidable power and led to his defeat. Many assumed his boxing career was effectively over.

After a few more fights, Foreman lost a bout in Puerto Rico. Suffering from exhaustion and heatstroke, he stated later that he had a near-death experience.

He spoke of being in a terrifying place of nothingness and despair and pled with God to help him. He said he heard a voice in his dressing room that asked, “Do you believe in God? Why are you ready to die?”

He responded, “Look, I am George Foreman. I can give money to charity and for cancer.” But the voice answered, “I don’t want your money; I want you.” In that moment, Foreman gave his life to Christ and said, “I never was the same man. My life changed.”

Foreman left boxing to become a minister. He went to prisons and hospitals to tell his story, then started a youth center.

Ten years later, in need of money for his ministry, he returned to boxing. Seven years later, he shocked the boxing world by knocking out Michael Moorer, nineteen years his junior, and regaining his world title. Foreman’s twenty years between titles is easily the longest gap in boxing history.

“George Foreman put God first”

Foreman started a church in Houston he led for three decades. He made millions from the George Foreman Grill, but said he was especially proud of the way it helped people lose weight and improve their health: “Success cannot be measured with money when you’re talking about this.”

He starred briefly in a sitcom called “George” in the 1990s and even appeared on the reality singing competition The Masked Singer in 2022. A biographical movie based on his life was released the next year.

He was especially grateful for his wife Mary. “When I speak, they ask me what I consider my most crowning achievement,” he said. “I raise up my left hand and show them my wedding band.”

When a reporter asked him what aspect of his life he hoped would stand out most, he replied:

Most importantly, that someone will read somewhere that George Foreman put God first. I had that experience in Puerto Rico all those years back and it is just as real and fresh as if it happened to me yesterday. People know if you sit down long enough with me, “Oh, he’s going to start talking religion.” And that’s what I really want people to know about me, that I was a church member, and I give my life to Jesus Christ.

“The world is full of people who want to play it safe”

When I “start talking religion,” secular people can easily dismiss my words as coming from a “paid Christian” who is simply doing his job. When you start sharing your faith, however, they have no such recourse. If you use your cultural influence for Christ, others “see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

George Foreman touched millions of people who will never know my name. But I have the privilege of knowing people who don’t know his.

So do you.

The Holy Spirit is at work today preparing the heart of someone he intends you to influence tomorrow. The key, in the words of my wise mentor, is to stay obedient to the last word we heard from God and open to the next. We cannot measure the eternal significance of present faithfulness.

When George Foreman met Jesus in a dressing room in Puerto Rico, he could not know I would be writing about his experience decades later or that you would be reading my words. You cannot know how God will use your obedience tomorrow to touch souls for decades to come (if the Lord tarries).

Here’s the key: If we have a genuine, daily relationship with the living Lord Jesus, we cannot be the same. Nor can the lives we touch.

Our secularized culture sees Jesus as a figure of the past akin to Buddha, Muhammad, and Confucius. But Foreman experienced Jesus as a living, present-tense reality. His life was transformed not by religion but by a personal experience with our transforming Lord. He spent the rest of his life encouraging others to meet the One who changed his life.

Now you and I are invited to follow his example.

In his book Knockout Entrepreneur, George Foreman wrote:

The world is full of people who want to play it safe, people who have tremendous potential but never use it. Somewhere deep inside them, they know that they could do more in life, be more, and have more—if only they were willing to take a few risks.

What risks will you take for Jesus today?

Denison Forum

Why you are alive at this moment in history

If you’re among the millions who are afraid of flying these days, here’s fodder for your fears: the shutdown of London’s Heathrow Airport last Friday not only exposed issues with “creaking infrastructure” at Britain’s airports, but British reporters are now speculating about the dire consequences if Russia was behind it.

The fire that engulfed a nearby substation Thursday evening caused Europe’s busiest airport to shut down the next day, disrupting more than 1,300 flights and 200,000 passengers. A British official said Friday that there is “no indication of Russian involvement” in the fire, but intelligence experts state that the inferno had “all the hallmarks” of Russian sabotage.

The shutdown came as Russia’s disruption and sabotage operations in the West are continuing to escalate. A report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies showed that transportation and critical infrastructure are some of the primary targets of Russian attacks, which have often utilized explosives.

Whether Russia or another actor was behind the power outage, the fact remains that such a crisis could be the work of terrorists in the future. In a world as interconnected as ours, a single act of sabotage could affect millions or more.

Add China’s deep-sea cable cutter that “could reset the world order” and renewed fighting in Lebanon and Gaza over the weekend (more on both in tomorrow’s Daily Article), and we could be forgiven for wishing we had been born in a different century. However, when confronting massive challenges, we can find hope in this fact: if God could not use us effectively at this moment in history, we would not be alive at this moment in history.

Vetting before I went to East Malaysia

Despite what secularists say, you are not here by chance. You are alive today by the creative act of your Creator. It is by his providence that you were not alive a hundred years ago or a hundred years from now (if the Lord tarries).

And God makes no mistakes.

I spent the summer before my senior year of college serving as a missionary in East Malaysia on the island of Borneo. Before I was selected for this assignment, mission officials put me through rigorous vetting to be sure I had the requisite capacities for the assignment. They did not want to send me where I could not be effective, and they knew much more about the position than I did.

Our omniscient Father is far better at employing his children than humans could ever be. If you did not have the requisite capacities to be assigned this moment in history, you would not be living in this moment of history.

Of course, this fact can feel like a compliment we’d rather not receive. Mother Teresa admitted: “I know God will not give me anything I can’t handle. I just wish that he didn’t trust me so much.” You might feel the same way today.

“If you had been here, my brother would not have died”

If so, let’s consider a familiar story with a surprising insight.

In John 11 we read that Lazarus had fallen sick and his sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, he whom you love is ill” (v. 3). Verse 5 emphasizes the depth of their relationship: “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”

Then comes the surprise: “So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was” (v. 6, my emphasis). So translates a Greek word meaning “therefore” or “consequently.”

How can it be that Jesus stayed where he was because he loved Lazarus and his sisters?

Martha had the same question when he eventually arrived: “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died” (v. 21). As did her sister Mary, who repeated the assertion verbatim (v. 32), perhaps indicating that they had discussed their confusion.

“The reason why the crowd went to meet him”

Jesus’ delay ensured that he would arrive in Bethany four days after Lazarus’ death (v. 17). Here’s why this matters: Rabbis taught that the soul hovers over the body of the deceased person for the first three days. If Jesus had raised Lazarus earlier than he did, this could have been seen as a resuscitation rather than a resurrection.

By delaying, Jesus showed himself to be not just a miraculous healer of the sick (cf. v. 37) but one with the power over death itself (vv. 43–44).

As a result, “Many of the Jews” who saw what he did “believed in him” (v. 45). Later we read that a “large crowd of the Jews” came to Jerusalem “not only on account of [Jesus] but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead” (John 12:9).

In fact, “on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus” (v. 11). The next day, they met Jesus as he came into Jerusalem on what we now call Palm Sunday, greeting him with “branches of palm trees” and shouting hosannas of praise (v. 13). John adds: “The crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to bear witness. The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign” (vv. 17–18, my emphasis).

Here’s the point: Jesus’ delay in responding to Lazarus’ sickness, which made no sense to Lazarus’ sisters at the time, led to a providential miracle that changed history and demonstrated his divine status for all time.

It is always too soon to give up on God

This story is preserved in the Bible because it is as relevant today as when it first occurred. Our secularized society views Jesus as a figure of the past, but he is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). Anything he has ever done, he can still do.

Our broken culture desperately needs the witness of lives transformed by the living Lord Jesus. So, where do you need his life-giving power today? If you name your need, give it to your Lord, and trust his timing, you’ll experience his providence in ways that will mark your life and empower your influence.

It is always too soon to give up on God. Max Lucado reminded us:

“Peter was in a storm before he walked on water. Lazarus was in a grave before he came out of it. The demoniac was possessed before he was a preacher, and the paralytic was on a stretcher before he was in your Bible.”

What “grave” will you trust to your Lord today?

Quote for the day:

“Trust the past to God’s mercy, the present to God’s love, and the future to God’s providence.” —St. Augustine

Our latest website resources:

• Is Shakespeare’s birthplace being canceled? Researchers want to “decolonize” his museum in England
• A review of Mark McCormack’s “The 110% Solution”
• Astronauts return, Democrat party turmoil, JFK files, & March Madness
• Redemptive love and healing after abortion
• Your odds of predicting a perfect March Madness bracket: A reflection on divine providence and sustaining hope

Denison Forum

Have we reached “end-stage capitalism”?

Zeynep Tufekci is a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University and a New York Times opinion columnist. Her latest Times article is headlined “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.” In it, she describes in great detail the lengths taken to discount the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic began in a research lab in Wuhan, China.

For example, a paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent scientists declared that no “laboratory-based scenario” for the pandemic virus was plausible. However, Tufekci writes, “While the scientists publicly said the scenario was implausible, privately many of its authors considered the scenario to be not just plausible but likely.”

She adds:

To this day, there is no strong scientific evidence ruling out a lab leak or proving that the virus arose from human-animal contact in that seafood market. The few papers cited for market origin were written by a small, overlapping group of authors, including those who didn’t tell the public how serious their doubts had been.

If you’re thinking that this issue is relegated to the past, think again. Tufekci refers us to a recent paper in Cell, a prestigious scientific journal, reporting that researchers have taken samples of viruses found in bats and experimented to see if they could infect human cells and pose a pandemic risk.

Many of these researchers work or have worked at the same Wuhan Institute of Virology where many now believe the COVID-19 pandemic originated. The scientists did this latest work under conditions that are “insufficient for work with potentially dangerous respiratory viruses.” According to Tufekci, “If just one lab worker unwittingly inhaled the virus and got infected, there’s no telling what the impact could be on Wuhan, a city of millions, or the world.”

From farmers to consumers

This story combines two issues, both foundational to the flourishing of our nation.

The first concerns trust in our media, which the Founders considered vital to a functioning democracy. In 1972, 68 percent of Americans told Gallup they had a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the mass media. Today, only 31 percent express such confidence while the percentage who have “none at all” has grown six-fold.

The second concerns trust in our government, which is clearly foundational to a participatory democracy. In 1958, three-quarters of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time. Last year, 16 percent said the same.

In both cases, a significant factor relates to the capitalistic system by which our economy functions.

There was a day when much of what Americans consumed and owned came from their own hands. At the time of the American Revolution, 95 percent of us were farmers; today that figure is less than 2 percent. Today, we purchase nearly everything we own and use, which makes us consumers in nearly every dimension of our lives.

And consumers are conditioned by advertisers to want more than we have and to tie happiness to consumption. As advertisers utilize ever more sophisticated algorithms to target customers, this materialistic message has become ever more effective.

As a result, Gallup reports that the percentage of Americans who say money is “extremely/very important” to them has risen from 67 percent in 2002 to 79 percent today. At the same time, the percentage who say religion is “very” important to them has fallen from 70 percent in 1965 to 45 percent today. And the percentage who say they are “extremely/very proud” to be an American has fallen from 87 percent in 2002 to 67 percent today.

What is “end-stage capitalism”?

An Atlantic article describes “end-stage capitalism” as the cultural devolution to the place where “nothing has any value or meaning other than its sale price.” A secularized “post-truth” society has no measure of meaning beyond what we happen to want today and are willing to pay for it.

This citizen-as-consumer trend ties directly to today’s conversation in that both media and politics now function through this lens.

As I have written, a media that exists to “sell” consumers what they want to consume is transactional rather than informational. Its purpose is less to report the news as objectively as possible than to appeal to the specific demographic it targets and its advertisers seek to reach.

Similarly, in a deeply partisan democracy, leaders are elected and empowered by appealing not to the broad electorate but to their specific demographic base. When each side sees the other side as the enemy, the purpose of government is less to serve the common good than to advance what “our side” wants.

And, once again, we become consumers more than citizens.

One of Satan’s most subtle strategies

This issue applies not just to media and government, but to evangelical Christians as well.

We believe that all people need to trust in Christ as their Savior to receive eternal life and spend eternity in heaven. However, such a decision can be transactional at its heart: Have faith in Jesus not so much because of who he is but because of what he will do for you. Read Scripture not simply because it is “God preaching,” as JI Packer described it, but so God will bless you. Pray, worship, give of our time and money, serve in the church—each can be our attempt to earn God’s favor and provision.

This is one of Satan’s most subtle ways of leading us away from an intimate daily communion with the living Lord Jesus. In Screwtape Letters, CS Lewis gives voice to the tempter’s strategy:

We do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but failing that, as a means to anything. . . . “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That’s the game.

The antidote is to focus on the foundational fact that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). By definition, his love for us has nothing to do with what we can and cannot do for him. His Son has already died for every sin we have ever committed and will ever commit (John 10:11). No religious transactions can make him love us any more or less than he does at this moment.

“The things of earth will grow strangely dim”

As a result, you and I are free to love God because he loves us, not so he will. We are free to love our neighbor whether they love us or not because we are already loved unconditionally and passionately by our Father.

This changes other people from commodities into sisters and brothers for whom Jesus died. It changes the material world from commodities into creation to be used to glorify and serve our Creator.

When we make this shift, as the old hymn says, “the things of earth will grow strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace.”

This is the invitation, and the promise, of God.

Quote for the day:

“Believe God’s love and power more than you believe your own feelings and experiences. Your rock is Christ, and it is not the rock that ebbs and flows but the sea.” —Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661)

Our latest website resources:

• Redemptive love and healing after abortion
• Nature or nurture? The science of “Sociogenomics” says both
• Astronauts return, Democrat party turmoil, JFK files, & March Madness
• Your odds of predicting a perfect March Madness bracket: A reflection on divine providence and sustaining hope
• Why is the new Syrian regime targeting minorities? A call to discernment and intercession

Denison Forum

Have we reached “end-stage capitalism”?

Zeynep Tufekci is a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University and a New York Times opinion columnist. Her latest Times article is headlined “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.” In it, she describes in great detail the lengths taken to discount the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic began in a research lab in Wuhan, China.

For example, a paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent scientists declared that no “laboratory-based scenario” for the pandemic virus was plausible. However, Tufekci writes, “While the scientists publicly said the scenario was implausible, privately many of its authors considered the scenario to be not just plausible but likely.”

She adds:

To this day, there is no strong scientific evidence ruling out a lab leak or proving that the virus arose from human-animal contact in that seafood market. The few papers cited for market origin were written by a small, overlapping group of authors, including those who didn’t tell the public how serious their doubts had been.

If you’re thinking that this issue is relegated to the past, think again. Tufekci refers us to a recent paper in Cell, a prestigious scientific journal, reporting that researchers have taken samples of viruses found in bats and experimented to see if they could infect human cells and pose a pandemic risk.

Many of these researchers work or have worked at the same Wuhan Institute of Virology where many now believe the COVID-19 pandemic originated. The scientists did this latest work under conditions that are “insufficient for work with potentially dangerous respiratory viruses.” According to Tufekci, “If just one lab worker unwittingly inhaled the virus and got infected, there’s no telling what the impact could be on Wuhan, a city of millions, or the world.”

From farmers to consumers

This story combines two issues, both foundational to the flourishing of our nation.

The first concerns trust in our media, which the Founders considered vital to a functioning democracy. In 1972, 68 percent of Americans told Gallup they had a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the mass media. Today, only 31 percent express such confidence while the percentage who have “none at all” has grown six-fold.

The second concerns trust in our government, which is clearly foundational to a participatory democracy. In 1958, three-quarters of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time. Last year, 16 percent said the same.

In both cases, a significant factor relates to the capitalistic system by which our economy functions.

There was a day when much of what Americans consumed and owned came from their own hands. At the time of the American Revolution, 95 percent of us were farmers; today that figure is less than 2 percent. Today, we purchase nearly everything we own and use, which makes us consumers in nearly every dimension of our lives.

And consumers are conditioned by advertisers to want more than we have and to tie happiness to consumption. As advertisers utilize ever more sophisticated algorithms to target customers, this materialistic message has become ever more effective.

As a result, Gallup reports that the percentage of Americans who say money is “extremely/very important” to them has risen from 67 percent in 2002 to 79 percent today. At the same time, the percentage who say religion is “very” important to them has fallen from 70 percent in 1965 to 45 percent today. And the percentage who say they are “extremely/very proud” to be an American has fallen from 87 percent in 2002 to 67 percent today.

What is “end-stage capitalism”?

An Atlantic article describes “end-stage capitalism” as the cultural devolution to the place where “nothing has any value or meaning other than its sale price.” A secularized “post-truth” society has no measure of meaning beyond what we happen to want today and are willing to pay for it.

This citizen-as-consumer trend ties directly to today’s conversation in that both media and politics now function through this lens.

As I have written, a media that exists to “sell” consumers what they want to consume is transactional rather than informational. Its purpose is less to report the news as objectively as possible than to appeal to the specific demographic it targets and its advertisers seek to reach.

Similarly, in a deeply partisan democracy, leaders are elected and empowered by appealing not to the broad electorate but to their specific demographic base. When each side sees the other side as the enemy, the purpose of government is less to serve the common good than to advance what “our side” wants.

And, once again, we become consumers more than citizens.

One of Satan’s most subtle strategies

This issue applies not just to media and government, but to evangelical Christians as well.

We believe that all people need to trust in Christ as their Savior to receive eternal life and spend eternity in heaven. However, such a decision can be transactional at its heart: Have faith in Jesus not so much because of who he is but because of what he will do for you. Read Scripture not simply because it is “God preaching,” as JI Packer described it, but so God will bless you. Pray, worship, give of our time and money, serve in the church—each can be our attempt to earn God’s favor and provision.

This is one of Satan’s most subtle ways of leading us away from an intimate daily communion with the living Lord Jesus. In Screwtape Letters, CS Lewis gives voice to the tempter’s strategy:

We do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but failing that, as a means to anything. . . . “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That’s the game.

The antidote is to focus on the foundational fact that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). By definition, his love for us has nothing to do with what we can and cannot do for him. His Son has already died for every sin we have ever committed and will ever commit (John 10:11). No religious transactions can make him love us any more or less than he does at this moment.

“The things of earth will grow strangely dim”

As a result, you and I are free to love God because he loves us, not so he will. We are free to love our neighbor whether they love us or not because we are already loved unconditionally and passionately by our Father.

This changes other people from commodities into sisters and brothers for whom Jesus died. It changes the material world from commodities into creation to be used to glorify and serve our Creator.

When we make this shift, as the old hymn says, “the things of earth will grow strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace.”

This is the invitation, and the promise, of God.

Quote for the day:

“Believe God’s love and power more than you believe your own feelings and experiences. Your rock is Christ, and it is not the rock that ebbs and flows but the sea.” —Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661)

Our latest website resources:

• Redemptive love and healing after abortion
• Nature or nurture? The science of “Sociogenomics” says both
• Astronauts return, Democrat party turmoil, JFK files, & March Madness
• Your odds of predicting a perfect March Madness bracket: A reflection on divine providence and sustaining hope
• Why is the new Syrian regime targeting minorities? A call to discernment and intercession

Denison Forum

A call to discernment and intercession

Syrian security forces inspect vehicles at a checkpoint, following a recent wave of violence between Syrian security forces and gunmen loyal to former President Bashar Assad, as well as subsequent sectarian attacks, in Latakia, in Syria’s coastal region, Tuesday, March 11, 2025. (AP Photo/Ghaith Alsayed)

It seemed things were getting better in Syria after the fall of the Assad regime. For example, the new Syrian government recently reached an agreement with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces that control the northeast part of the country, bringing most of the nation under the central government that replaced Bashar al-Assad.

When Ahmed al-Sharaa led an Islamist group called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) to overthrow the Assad regime last year, he promised inclusive and democratic governance for the war-torn country. But now we are hearing that recent violence against the Alawite minority was carried out not by Assad loyalists, as had been reported, but by pro-government forces. More than a thousand people were killed in the bloodshed, most of whom were Alawite civilians.

We should note that the systematic targeting of Alawites is consistent with the goals of ISIS, which especially hates Shiites and minorities. (Alawites are distinct from Shiites, but they are often seen as part of the same category.)

Video footage and images show militants wearing a uniform with the ISIS black flag symbol. In one video, a zealot is pictured inside a truck at the scene of a massacre as he broadcasts to his colleagues: “To the mujahadeen and those who stand guard, do not leave alive any Alawite, male or female. . . . Slaughter them all, including the children in the bed. These are pigs. Take them and throw them into the sea, as the sages of old advise.”

Sharaa is a former al-Qaeda operative, though he has tried to distance himself publicly from his terrorist roots. However, if ISIS remnants are being integrated into the Syrian state security services, we could see a new surge of terrorism in the region and beyond.

Are entire villages being slaughtered?

In the Free Press, a reporter named Theo Padnos describes his two years held captive by Jabhat al-Nusra, the precursor to HTS. He says they regularly tortured him and made clear their desire to destroy the Alawite minority.

Accordingly, he warns, “Some three million Alawites . . . are in mortal danger because of the Islamist terrorists who now rule Syria.”

Christians are reportedly being persecuted by the new regime as well. According to Asia News, a Vatican-affiliated news agency that reports on Christian communities, more than eight hundred people were recently slaughtered in their homes solely because they were Christians.

Some say the number of victims is much higher. The Iraqi Christian Foundation, which advocates for Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East, reports the death toll at eighteen hundred. It alleges that entire villages are being slaughtered.

Rev. Johnnie Moore, president of the Congress of Christian Leaders, told Fox News Digital his organization has verified that the fighters “indiscriminately and grotesquely killed countless civilians, including a number of Christians,” adding that “the numbers are rising.” He called the atrocity “a clear demonstration that this new government has failed at the first task of any government, which is to protect its citizens.”

For more on the persecution of Christians in Syria and why they have been targeted, see Laurel Wood’s “Why are Christians being killed in Syria?”

Three urgent responses

You and I can respond to this horrific news in three ways.

One: Pray for divine protection for minority populations being persecuted in Syria. Whether they are Christians or Alawite Muslims, they are beloved by our Father. They deserve our compassion and daily intercession.

Two: Pray for our leaders to have discernment in dealing with the new regime in Syria. Each population group of any significance has its own metanarrative, and their leaders can be expected to act in their national best interest.

If the new leaders in Syria, many of whom are Islamists, believe their goals are best met by persecuting minorities while lying about this to the larger world, they may well do so. Given the horrific reporting of recent days, the international community must not take them at their word. Discernment is vital.

Three: Use our influence to rally others to this cause. As I am writing about this news in this way, you can use your social media platforms to influence others as well. Ask your pastor and church leaders to pray for Christians and other minorities in Syria, perhaps during worship services this Sunday morning. Encourage those you know to join you in an army of intercession.

George Orwell observed, “The real test of character is how you treat someone who has no possibility of doing you any good.” Persecuted Syrians cannot benefit us today, but we can do them much good.

According to Billy Graham, “Faithfulness and persecution often go hand in hand.” This is true not only for faithful Christians in Syria but also for those who would respond to such persecution with their own faithfulness.

Beginning now.

Denison Forum

A reflection on divine providence and sustaining hope

March Madness is upon us. The NCAA Men’s Division I basketball tournament begins Tuesday night. The women’s tournament begins Wednesday evening.

If, like me, you don’t know much about college basketball, your odds of predicting each game of the men’s or women’s bracket correctly are 1 in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (approximately 9.2 quintillion). If you are familiar with the game, your odds improve to 1 in 120,200,000,000.

This is just one example of the extreme finitude with which humans live regarding the future. Others are more humorous than injurious:

• “Cinema is little more than a passing fad” (Charlie Chaplin, 1916).
• “The Beatles have no future in show business” (executives at Decca Records, 1962).
• “I think there is a worldwide market for maybe five computers” (Thomas Watson, IBM president, 1943).
• “There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share” (Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, 2007).
• “Everything that can be invented, has been invented” (Charles H. Duell, US Patent Office Commissioner, 1899).

Others, however, are catastrophic:

• A dead power line unintentionally brought back to life may have caused the deadly Eaton fire in Los Angeles. If this is true and could have been foreseen, horrific tragedy could have been avoided.
• At least thirty-nine people were killed by tornadoes, wildfires, and dust storms that wrought havoc across multiple US states. If the storms’ precise location and timing could have been foreseen, perhaps these lives could have been spared.
• A massive fire tore through an overcrowded nightclub in North Macedonia last Sunday, killing 59 people and injuring 155 others. If the fire could have been anticipated and prevented, the tragedy could have been avoided.

This article, thus far, may seem to be a moot point. We cannot see the future, as so-called “expert” predictions so often demonstrate. So why contemplate an omniscience that cannot be ours?

Because Christians claim to worship and serve a God who does know the future. If that’s true, why doesn’t he make it clearer to us?

One of the most ironic chapters in Scripture

If you knew what would cause a deadly wildfire, wouldn’t you warn someone who could prevent it? If you had perfect meteorological foreknowledge, wouldn’t you alert people in the path of storms? If you knew a tragedy would strike a crowded building, wouldn’t you tell those inside?

Christians often wrestle with the fact that an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God permits so much suffering in this world he created. Leaving his omnipotence aside (which is a large issue, given that he not only could foresee the tragedies we’ve described but had the power to prevent them himself), let’s just focus on his omniscience.

Why doesn’t God tell us today what we need to know to prevent disasters tomorrow?

Now let’s make the problem even worse: He sometimes does.

I find 2 Kings 6 one of the most ironic chapters in the Bible. Here the king of Syria is at war with Israel. However, every time he decides when and where to camp, the Lord warns the prophet Elisha, who sends word to the king of Israel (vv. 8–10). The Syrian king is distressed and sends servants to arrest Elisha, which is foolish since he should assume that the prophet will have foreknowledge of this strategy as well.

But rather than avoid the Syrian army, the prophet prays for God to use his angelic army to strike them with blindness (v. 18). Elisha then feeds them and sends them home, “and the Syrians did not come again on raids into the land of Israel” (v. 23).

If God knew when the Syrians would attack his people and warned them beforehand, why doesn’t he do the same when tragedy threatens us today?

Three plausible facts

A skeptic’s answer would be that this conversation demonstrates the absurdity of the question. God doesn’t do such miracles because (a) he does not exist; (b) he exists but does not do miracles; or (c) he could do miracles but, like Zeus and his cohort atop Mt. Olympus, he is too capricious to be trusted.

None of these options are required by the facts on the ground, however, assuming that plausible answers to our question can be given. And they can.

One: God can give only what we will receive.

If we do not believe he exists, we obviously will not pray for his guidance or follow what wisdom he attempts to provide. Our atheism then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, like the person who doesn’t believe doctors exist, does not consult them with his disease, and dies as a result.

Two: God can lead only those who will follow.

He chooses to honor the free will he has given us. As a result, he can reveal the future only to those willing to receive such revelation and guide only those who will follow his guidance. I believe that many of the tragedies we wish we had foreseen could have been avoided if more of us had sought God’s leadership more often.

Three: One aspect of God’s omniscience is that, by definition, it cannot be understood by our finitude.

St. Anselm described God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” If my mind could understand this Supreme Being, either I would be God or he would not be. I should, therefore, not expect to comprehend his providential ways even in the suffering of our broken world. As he told the prophet:

My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lᴏʀᴅ. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8–9).

Consequently, even when we believe in God and seek his guidance, there will be times when he does not answer us as we wish. On such days, however, we can claim the fact that one day we will understand what we do not today (1 Corinthians 13:12). And we can trust our Father to redeem all he allows for his ultimate glory and our ultimate good.

A simple prayer for each day

I harbor serious doubts about whether God would reveal the “perfect NCAA bracket” to us even if we believe in his omniscience and pray for his guidance. But I do believe that he would lead us into an uncertain future more often if we sought his leading more often and were willing to follow it faithfully for his glory and the common good.

As James noted, “You do not have because you do not ask” (James 4:2). Alternately, “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (v. 3).

Some years ago, I learned a simple prayer that I seek to pray every day:

“You lead, I follow.”

Will you offer it to our Father with me today?

Denison Forum

How long can our democracy sustain itself like this?

Many people think Americans have gotten ruder since the COVID-19 pandemic. This morning, Chuck Schumer may agree with them.

Enough Senate Democrats voted for a Republican spending bill last Friday to avoid a government shutdown. Led by their minority leader, Charles Schumer (D, NY), they chose the GOP’s spending regime rather than be blamed for a shutdown they feared would further empower President Trump.

Many Democrats, however, consider Schumer’s decision to be so heinous that they are questioning whether he should step down as their leader. According to the Hill, the minority leader is now the center of a “civil war” within his party. A senior Democratic aide said of the frustration toward Schumer, “I’ve never seen anything like it in the time I’ve been in the Senate toward any leader on our side.” The furor comes at a time when, according to a CNN poll released yesterday, their party’s favorability rating among Americans stands at a record low.

If you’re a Democrat, you are likely troubled by this news and what it may mean for the future of your party. If you’re a Republican, you are likely pleased by this news for the same reason. However, this story is symptomatic of a much deeper issue with implications for the future of our democracy.

Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill

Partisan divisions are inevitable in any disparate society that attempts to govern itself through participatory democracy. Nearly every true democracy on the planet (apart from small countries such as Micronesia, Tuvalu, and Palau) consists of political parties, many with many of them. (Thirty-nine parties participated in Israel’s last election, for example.)

But the depth of partisan rancor we are experiencing today is not simply a function of democracy. For example, President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill were political opposites, but they were also good friends. In his book Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked, Chris Matthews describes a scene that typifies their relationship.

After President Reagan was shot and nearly killed in 1981, O’Neill was one of the first people the president let visit him in his hospital room. O’Neill grasped both of the president’s hands and said, “God bless you, Mr. President.” The president, still groggy, thanked him for coming.

The speaker, holding one of Mr. Reagan’s hands, got on his knees and said he would like to offer a prayer for the president, choosing the Twenty-Third Psalm. Then O’Neill kissed Reagan on the forehead.

That was then, this is now.

Today, 63 percent of Democrats see Republicans as immoral, while 72 percent of Republicans view Democrats in the same way. Nearly half of Americans consider members of the opposing political party to be “downright evil.”

President Ronald Reagan instructed his staff, “Remember, we have no enemies, only opponents.” “Enemies” must be defeated at all costs. To seek a middle ground or consensus is to compromise with evil. One side must win, which means the other side must lose.

How long can a consensual democracy sustain itself like this?

“They worshiped him, but some doubted”

During Jesus’ earthly ministry, “not even his brothers believed in him” (John 7:5). In fact, at one point “they were saying, ‘He is out of his mind’” (Mark 3:21).

However, one of his brothers later became the leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13–21) and author of the biblical book of James. Another became the author of the New Testament book of Jude.

When Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, “all the disciples left him and fled” (Matthew 26:56); Peter then infamously denied his Lord three times (vv. 69–75). When the apostles later met the risen Lord, “they worshiped him, but some doubted” (Matthew 28:17, my emphasis).

However, Peter became the prophetic preacher of Pentecost and bold witness before the very authorities who executed his Lord (Acts 5:29). And the other apostles led in advancing the nascent Christian movement so effectively that it “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6).

When we love those who do not love us

Our postmodern, secularized society is convinced that all truth claims are personal and subjective. As a result, when we differ in our opinions, reasoning toward a solution and consensus is pointless. Rather, we congregate in political “tribes” with those who already agree with us and see the other side as wrong and even evil.

But Christians know that Christ can change any heart and transform any life. What he did with his apostles, he has done with us. So we see the other “side” as people for whom Jesus died. And we know that no one is beyond the reach of his grace.

As a result, even when we disagree deeply on the most divisive issues of our day, we will refuse to slander (1 Peter 2:1). We will “honor the emperor” (v. 17) and pray for our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1–2). And we will model the humility and compassion that are essential in any participatory governance.

We should not be surprised when lost people act like lost people. But when Christians engage in the same political slander and vitriol, our Lord is shamed and our witness damaged. By contrast, when we love those who do not love us, our broken culture is surprised and drawn closer to the Source of our grace. The more people reject our message, the more urgently they need it.

Establishing two hundred churches in Ireland

Today is St. Patrick’s Day, the annual holiday commemorating the death of the patron saint of Ireland in AD 461. He was enslaved at age sixteen, came to faith in Christ, and escaped to return home at age twenty-two.

But God called him to go back to his Irish captors as a missionary. When his career was over, he had established some two hundred churches in Ireland and led more than one hundred thousand people to Christ.

Despite more than a dozen attempts on his life, Patrick saw the Irish not as his enemies but as people in need of God’s grace. Accordingly, he wrote in his Confessions, “The Irish, who had never had the knowledge of God and worshiped only idols and unclean things, have lately become the people of the Lord, and are called sons of God.”

St. Patrick closed his memoirs by explaining the secret to his history-changing ministry:

“Do you judge, and let it be most firmly believed, that it was the gift of God.”

With whom will you share this “gift” today?

NOTE: For more on today’s topic, please see my recent website article, “Democrats clear way for funding bill, end threat of shutdown.”

Quote for the day:

“Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me, Christ in every eye that sees me, Christ in every ear that hears me.” —St. Patrick

Our latest website resources:

• Who are the Tate brothers and why should Christians care?
• Why are Christians being killed in Syria?
• Why teens are growing up more anxious and depressed: A review of “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt
• Why antisemitism is such a problem on so many campuses: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”
• What I learned as a parent that helped me as a minister (Or was it the other way around?)

Denison Forum

Clergy abuse scandals and a prophetic moment I have not forgotten

Rev. Robert Morris founded Gateway Church in April 2000 at the Hilton Hotel in Grapevine, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. Ten years later, the church opened its current sixty-four-acre facility. In November 2018, it was ranked the fourth largest megachurch in the US with about twenty-eight thousand weekly attendees.

While I do not know Robert Morris personally, I have known many who have benefited greatly from Gateway’s ministries over the years. It was deeply grievous to learn of horrific abuse allegations against Morris last June, prompting his resignation.

This week, news broke that Morris has now been indicted on child sex abuse charges in Oklahoma. The former pastor is charged with five counts of lewd or indecent acts with a child. The Oklahoma attorney general told the Dallas Morning News yesterday that Morris will “more likely than not” turn himself in and be arraigned by Monday.

Earlier in the week, the Dallas Morning News published an extensive article interviewing ex-Gateway employees who say the church had “a culture of silence and trauma.” They said that before Morris’ exit, the church had a “narcissistic” culture where criticism was silenced and staffers were left with lasting trauma.

Top Headlines. Non-Partisan. Biblical Perspective.

According to the elder board chair, the church is now reckoning with a “failure of culture.”

“If the salt has lost its taste”

Ruth Graham recently profiled evangelical author Aaron Renn in the New York Times. Renn is especially known for his historical taxonomy that has become conventional wisdom for many:

• American Christians experienced a “positive world” between 1964 and 1994, during which being a Christian generally enhanced our social status and “Christian social norms” were the basic norms of the broader American culture.
• In the “neutral world,” which lasted roughly from 1994 to 2014, Christianity no longer held a privileged status, but was viewed as one of many valid options in a pluralistic public square.
• About a decade ago, the US became a “negative world” for Christians. Following Christ and holding traditional Christian moral views, particularly related to sex and gender, is now seen as “a threat to the public good and new public moral order.”

I have written widely on this shift as well in numerous articles and especially in my book, The Coming Tsunami: Why Christians Are Labeled Intolerant, Irrelevant, Oppressive, and Dangerous—and How We Can Turn the Tide. I would nuance Renn’s description by noting that “positive,” “neutral,” and “negative” cultural engagements depend not only on chronology but also on geography. Evangelicals on both coasts and in major cities are likely to experience the “negative” world more than those in smaller Midwest towns, for example.

However, I agree with Renn that biblical morality has become more problematic than ever before in American history and that, despite recent more positive trends, the church in America is facing unprecedented opposition.

According to Notre Dame scholar Christian Smith, author of Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America, sex abuse scandals are especially to blame:

The scandals violated most of the virtues believed to make religion good. They demonstrated that religion did not make people moral, did not help its own leaders cope with life’s challenges and temptations, did not promote social peace and harmony, and did not model virtuous behavior for others.

It is inconceivable to me that ministers whose moral failings have captured so many headlines over recent years intended this to happen. Surely they did not know when they took their first steps into sexual immorality that their sins would grievously wound so many people and deeply damage the larger witness of the church in contemporary society.

But this is just what Jesus warned us could happen: “If the salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet” (Matthew 5:13).

A prophetic moment I have never forgotten

Many years ago, I was teaching philosophy of religion at a major seminary when a megachurch pastor in the community was caught in numerous affairs. The news made headlines all weekend. The next Monday, I was attending seminary chapel when the speaker began his message by addressing the scandal.

I thought he was going to criticize the celebrity pastor for his appalling moral failures. But that’s not what he did.

After describing the story in some detail, he pointed his finger at us in the auditorium and declared, “And there but for the grace of God go you.” Then he pointed at himself and added, “And there but for the grace of God go I.”

It was a prophetic moment I have not forgotten. And one I’d like you to hear directed at your soul today: “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:14–15, my emphases). This process, unless halted through genuine repentance and sincere restoration, is inevitable.

A cancer left untreated will be worse tomorrow than it is today, until the day it kills the patient.

Why we need “abandonment to Jesus Christ”

Here we find yet another reason why you and I need the personal, transformational relationship with the living Lord Jesus that I have been emphasizing this week. He will “deliver us from evil” (Matthew 6:13), but we must seek such deliverance. His Spirit will give us victory over temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13), but we must first submit our lives and temptations to him.

Oswald Chambers observed:

“The reason some of us are such poor specimens of Christianity is because we have no Almighty Christ. We have Christian attributes and experiences, but there is no abandonment to Jesus Christ.”

Conversely, when we submit ourselves fully to the person of Jesus, “we walk in the light, as he is in the light” (1 John 1:7). But only then.

According to our Lord, you can be “salt [that] has lost its taste” and is “thrown out and trampled,” or you can “let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:13, 16). You can be part of the solution, or you can be part of the problem.

I face the same choice today.

Let us choose wisely.

Quote for the day:

“May we not only be delivered from the outward act or word that grieves Thee, but may the very springs of our nature be purified!” —F. B. Meyer

Our latest website resources:

• What I learned as a parent that helped me as a minister (Or was it the other way around?)
• Stock market woes, Syrian murders, Tate brothers, NFL free agency & more trending stories this week
• Why antisemitism is such a problem on so many campuses: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”
• “Computers with limbs” are coming. Is this a good thing? A ceasefire in Ukraine, death by firing squad, and the providential creation of God
• What is the New Thought Movement?

Denison Forum

Yesterday, a court ruled that Mahmoud Khalil—the Columbia University graduate who was arrested on Saturday for his role in pro-Palestine protests—will remain imprisoned in Louisiana while his case plays out in court. He is not, however, “in immediate danger of deportation” according to Department of Justice attorney Brandon Waterman.

Given the way Khalil’s case has been adjudicated in the court of public opinion, Waterman’s statement may come as a surprise to many. That said, it may not take long for his case to come to a conclusion.

Khalil is scheduled to appear before an immigration judge in Louisiana on March 27, though his lawyers are working to get him moved back to New York in the meantime. It’s possible that should they succeed, his trial will occur closer to his home there. And, if the scene outside the courtroom yesterday is any indication, he’d find himself amongst a much more sympathetic crowd.

But before we go any further, let’s take a step back and discuss a bit more about who Mahmoud Khalil is and why his case has generated such strong opinions on both sides of the debate.

Who is Mahmoud Khalil?

Mahmoud Khalil was a graduate student at Columbia University last year when protests rocked the campus and generated headlines. He was one of many who helped organize and lead those protests, though it’s unclear what role—if any—he played in the more disruptive elements like taking over buildings and forcing classes to close.

Khalil, who was born in Syria to Palestinian refugees, earned a computer science degree from the Lebanese American University before working for the British Embassy in Beirut. He came to America in 2022 on a student visa to pursue a master’s degree in international affairs at Columbia.

When the protests broke out at Columbia, he was part of the group attempting to mediate between university officials and the others who were part of the protest groups. He has been accused of helping to lead the Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD)—a student group wanting the university to divest itself of its financial ties to Israel—though he has denied playing such a role.

More recently, the Department of Homeland Security has accused him of “leading activities aligned to Hamas.” The White House has since claimed that he has also handed out pro-Hamas propaganda and supported the terrorist organization, though they stopped short of saying he was affiliated with the group.

To further complicate matters, upon graduating he switched from a student visa to a green card; a change that the DHS agents who arrested him on Saturday were apparently unaware had occurred.

That arrest has since sparked a heated debate about whether the government has overstepped in their attempts to deport Khalil for his actions on campus or if they are within their rights to send him out of the country.

Ultimately, that will be for the courts to decide, but their verdict is likely to have implications that stretch far beyond the current case.

Should Khalil be deported?

As Dr. Jim Denison wrote yesterday, the Trump administration is punishing the University as well, though Khalil is the first of the individuals who participated in those protests to face such a punishment. What many in these protests said, did, and stood for is antisemitic in nature and indefensible in both its ignorance of reality and defense of the unspeakable atrocities that occurred in the October 7 attacks. While there is competing evidence regarding the degree to which Khalil personally endorsed such rhetoric, those ideas are clearly wrong and unworthy of support.

However, that is not the question.

Rather, the more pressing issue is whether the government has the right to deport him for the role he played in speaking on behalf of those beliefs. And, honestly, no one really seems to know the answer.

The president signed an executive order during his second week in office intended to “combat antisemitism” on college campuses by threatening deportations and revoking visas of those who engage in such behavior. Yet it remains unclear whether that order gives the government the authority to arrest people without officially charging them with a crime—a step that, as of this writing, they have not taken with Khalil—or deport people for their speech.

The White House has cited the Immigration and Nationality Act for support. That law gives the Secretary of State the authority to revoke a green card or visa for those deemed a threat to the country’s national security interests. However, those statutes have typically required a more direct link to terror organizations to be considered applicable.

For all of his rhetoric and actions, there is little evidence to date that Khalil was a member of Hamas or was actively engaged in helping the group. As such, his case has largely been seen as an attempt by the Trump administration to define on its own terms when free speech goes beyond the pale of permissibility.

And that should make Khalil’s story relevant—and potentially troubling—to all of us.

Why I’m concerned about this case

As Isaac Saul wrote regarding Khalil:

“The entire point of free speech is to defend the principle even when you abhor the speech. I’m certain that Khalil and the organizations he affiliates with hold views I find abhorrent, and even if he publicly expresses them on a regular basis, I—along with anyone with real free-speech principles—should still defend his right to speak his views without fear of government reprisal.”

He’s right. Unless the government has evidence of a more direct and active link between Khalil and Hamas or other terrorist organizations—which is possible, if unlikely at this point—then they are dramatically lowering the bar for what can be considered deportable conduct.

If the government’s goal in doing so was to let those who supported Hamas know that they could be next, then mission accomplished. If it was to uphold the law and govern in accordance with the constitution, then they’ve missed the mark.

I know which of those priorities I would prefer for the president to focus on, especially since there are no guarantees that the next administration will not apply the same precedent to those who oppose abortion, stand for biblical sexuality, or support a host of other beliefs that were anathema to much of the popular culture less than a year ago.

You see, the problem with shifting your boundaries to accomplish your goals is that you lose the ability to cry foul when others do the same. One of the primary reasons why free speech is so important is that it enables us to advocate for the truth even when others don’t want to hear it.

Christ’s call doesn’t change

As Christians, there will be times when God calls us to stand up for some pretty unpopular and counter-cultural beliefs. It’s been like that from the beginning, and it’s not likely to change this side of heaven. So if anyone should be concerned about the potential abuse of power that would make it even more difficult and dangerous to express those beliefs, it should be us.

I don’t agree with what Mahmoud Khalil stands for or many of the beliefs his organization espoused. But that doesn’t mean he should be deported, and I am genuinely concerned about the precedent it would set if he is.

Either way, though, our job won’t change, and the truth Christ has called us to share will remain just as important regardless of what it costs us to share it.

How will you heed his call today?

Quote of the day:

“Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” —John Milton

Our latest website articles:

• “Computers with limbs” are coming. Is this a good thing?
• Why antisemitism is such a problem on so many campuses
• What is the New Thought movement?
• A review of “Happy Lies” by Melissa Dougherty
• Why teens are growing up more anxious and depressed

Denison Forum

What evangelicals get right—and wrong—about our faith

This Wall Street Journal headline caused me to click immediately: “Will There Be a Trump Recession?” The subtitle adds: “Economic signs are mixed, but his willy-nilly tariffs have markets worried.”

Fears of a recession sparked a major sell-off Monday, as the Dow dropped nearly nine hundred points. This after President Trump declined over the weekend to rule out a recession this year (though he stated yesterday that he did not foresee the US going into recession).

After Ontario imposed a 25 percent tariff on electricity sold to the US, Mr. Trump said he would double tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada yesterday to 50 percent. The provincial government of Ontario then backed down on its planned surcharges. The Dow careened through the day, rising before finally falling 478 points.

Today, the president imposed a sweeping 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum imports to encourage more companies to move their production to the US. The European Union retaliated this morning with new duties on US industrial and farm products.

All this amid worries that American consumers, whose spending is vital to the US economy, may be maxed out. With a shutdown looming if the Senate does not approve the GOP government funding measure passed by the House yesterday, economic uncertainties abound.

Asking your car to fly to Hawaii

As I noted yesterday, we live in a world changed in every aspect by the COVID–19 pandemic. One example: the US economy fell abruptly when the pandemic hit, but has since recovered these losses and ushered in a new era of growth.

However, such growth is no longer tethered to consumer sentiment. The two were largely aligned before 2020; now they are widely divergent. Amid widespread discouragement and pessimism, the US stands today at an all-time low ranking in the World Happiness Report.

Christians should not be surprised.

We know that “he who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income” (Ecclesiastes 5:10). To the contrary, “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils” (1 Timothy 6:10). It is idolatrous folly to expect created things to take the place of the Creator in our lives.

By contrast, we know that the “abundant” life we were created to experience is found only in Christ (John 10:10). Asking for material prosperity to make us happy is like asking your car to fly you to Hawaii. That’s not what it was made to do.

Leaving your baby at the hospital

However, the fact that our secular culture doesn’t understand this is not the fault of our secular culture. People don’t know what they don’t know. I could have cancer right now and be unaware of the fact. Consequently, I am not pursuing treatment for a disease I do not know I have.

But if my doctor knows my condition and doesn’t tell me, who is at fault—him or me?

Here is what evangelical Christians get right: We know that salvation is found only through faith in Christ (cf. John 3:18; 14:6; Acts 4:12). But here’s what many evangelicals get wrong: We lead people to trust in Christ as their Savior, but take them no further.

This is like parents who bring a child into the world and then leave it at the hospital. The “new birth” is only the beginning of the Christian life. Jesus wants us not only to be saved from hell but to experience the transformation only he can make in our lives.

He did not call people to be “believers” but “disciples,” consistently inviting them to “follow me” (Matthew 4:19; 8:22; 9:9; 16:24; 19:21). The Greek means to “walk with me, going where I go.” It describes not just a “decision for Christ” but a lifetime of experiencing him in an intimate, transforming way.

“By this my Father is glorified”

Our Lord was clear: “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples” (John 8:31). To “abide” is to remain, to think and act biblically in all we do. This is the daily, holistic decision to make Christ the Lord of every dimension of our lives, using all we have and are for him. Accordingly, he said, “Any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33).

When we experience the living Lord Jesus in this way, our lives demonstrate our faith: “By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples” (John 15:8). We love others as we are loved: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

We are commissioned to “make disciples of all nations” by “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20, my emphasis).

Imagine the difference if every Christian lived by all that Christ commanded us.

“A disciple is not above his teacher”

Now we have a choice to make. We can disregard the last two sections of this article and seek secular happiness along with the rest of our secular culture. But beware: Such a decision is a deliberate rejection of Jesus’ clear will for us, one made in the misguided belief that we know better than he does.

Our Lord stated, “A disciple is not above his teacher” (Luke 6:40a). We cannot choose our will above his and claim to be his disciple. It’s that simple.

However, Jesus added that “everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher” (v. 40b, my emphasis). When we walk with Jesus, we become like Jesus as his Spirit sanctifies us (2 Thessalonians 2:13) and conforms us to the character of Christ (Romans 8:29).

The result is that we fulfill our name as “Christians”—literally, “followers of Christ.” Not believers—followers. And followers of Jesus always change their world (cf. Acts 17:6).

Alan Redpath was right:

“All of the Lord Jesus Christ is mine at the moment of conversion, but I possess only as much of him as by faith I claim.”

How much of Jesus will you “claim” today?

NOTE: I often write articles for our website during the day on breaking news and current events. I encourage you to visit the website daily for more content from me and our writing team.

Quote for the day:

“Till sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet.” —Thomas Watson (1620–86)

Our latest website content:

• Bride leaves groom at the altar over politics: How did a lifelong covenant become a transactional contract?
• A review of “Happy Lies” by Melissa Dougherty
• Why teens are growing up more anxious and depressed: A review of “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt
• What is the New Thought movement?
• Why is profanity in public getting worse? “We need to think of our tongue as a messenger that runs errands for our heart.”

Denison Forum

“We’re living in the branch of history it created”

Five years ago today, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.

Just reading that sentence brings back horrible memories for me, as I’m sure it does for you. Images of portable morgues, patients dying alone in isolation wards, people masking out of fear of everyone they meet. It seemed nearly everything was shut down, from restaurants and businesses to schools and churches. No one knew when a vaccine would arrive, assuming one could be developed.

More than seven million people are confirmed to have died from the virus, though some estimates suggest the pandemic has actually caused between nineteen and thirty-six million deaths worldwide.

But these numbers, as horrific as they are, don’t begin to tell the whole story.

 “It shattered our cities and disordered society”

According to New York Times columnist David Wallace-Wells, we’re living in the “branch of history” the pandemic created, one whose “contours are only now coming into view.” He writes: “We tell ourselves we’ve moved on and hardly talk about the disease or all the people who died or the way the trauma and tumult have transformed us. But Covid changed everything around us.”

Among the changes he lists, I found these especially relevant for today’s article:

• “It turned us into hyperindividualists” in response to a tragedy so unthinkable and massive, we learned to process it through the lens of personal experience—and still do.
• “It inaugurated a new age of social Darwinism” as the survivors credit themselves and blame others for the crisis.
• “It broke our faith in public health” as debates erupted (and continue) over vaccines, masking, and the credibility of health officials.
• “It shattered our cities and disordered society”—homicides jumped nearly 30 percent in just a single year, homelessness surged, and drinking problems escalated, as did drug overdoses and traffic accident deaths. Many of these effects were temporary, but the politics of crime and disorder persist.

Wallace-Wells concludes: “Perhaps the biggest shock was realizing we still live in history—and at the mercy of biology.” Foreign Policy agrees, warning that “the status quo won’t save us from the next pandemic” and urging immediate steps to construct a global system for responding more effectively to future pandemic threats.

Saying more prayers is not the answer

While political leaders and public health officials will be on the front lines of the next pandemic, you and I are on the front lines of culture now. There is only one answer to our hyperindividualism, social Darwinism, broken faith in leaders, and shattered and disordered society.

It is not a revival of religion, though Wallace-Wells notes that the pandemic “may have halted the years-long decline of Christianity in America.” The cultural Christianity that passes for religion in our secularized society is no match for biology and the disasters it produces in our fallen world.

You may be surprised to hear me say this, but being more religious—going to more church services, reading more Bible texts, and saying more prayers—is not the answer in itself. Nor will the anodyne and customized “spirituality” of our day meet the moment.

Instead, we need what humans have always needed.

“Why do you seek the living among the dead?”

Luke 24 tells us that a group of women went to Jesus’ tomb “on the first day of the week,” where they were shocked to find it empty (vv. 1–3). Then two angels met them, asking: “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” (v. 5).

This is such a powerful question still today.

We “seek the living among the dead” whenever we treat Jesus as anything or anyone other than our living Lord. When he is an idea, a theology, a model, or a movement, he is as dead as if he were Buddha or Muhammad. When we seek and encounter him as a living person, only then do we experience the strength, wisdom, and peace he alone can give us amid the crises we face.

The problem is that it’s hard in our materialistic culture to seek that which must be known through faith rather than through experience. We understand cemeteries, not resurrections. We’re comfortable with theology, less with Theo.

But when we meet the living Lord for ourselves, as two men did later that first Easter Sunday, we hear his word to us (v. 27). We experience his presence in prayer and worship (v. 30). Then our eyes are “opened” and our “hearts burn within us” (vv. 31–32). And we are compelled to tell others what we have experienced (vv. 33–35), so they can experience him as well (vv. 36–49).

And a religion about Jesus becomes a transforming relationship with him.

God is “able to make all grace abound to you”

This is a day to remember the millions who died from the pandemic and the multiplied millions who still grieve their loss. It is a day to pray for our leaders and public health officials in the assumption that more pandemics are in our future.

And it is a day to seek a deeper, more intimate relationship with the living Lord Jesus than we have ever known. Why?

• He is “able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think” (Ephesians 3:20).
• He is “able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work” (2 Corinthians 9:8).
• He is “able to help those who are being tempted” (Hebrews 2:18).
• He is “able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25).
• He is “able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” (Jude 24).

In short, as Paul testified, “he is able” (2 Timothy 1:12).

Where would you say you are on your faith journey with him today?

NOTE: I frequently write articles for our website on breaking news and current events. I invite you to visit our website daily for more content from me and our writing team.

Quote for today:

“How wonderful to know that Christianity is more than a padded pew or a dim cathedral, but that it is a real, living, daily experience which goes on from grace to grace.” —Jim Elliot

Our latest website articles:

• Time change escalates heart attacks and car crashes: “I too was pinched off from a piece of clay”
• Why is profanity in public getting worse? “We need to think of our tongue as a messenger that runs errands for our heart.”
• Unexploded WWII bomb stops high-speed trains in Europe: “A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on”
• Meet Donna Kalil: the first woman to hunt pythons full-time: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”
• Buying the “Cheetozard” and playing Monopoly with apps

Denison Forum

How to live above the partisan noise of our day

Some news is tragic no matter your politics, such as Friday’s announcement that Gene Hackman died from heart disease and Alzheimer’s a week after his wife died of a respiratory illness linked to rodents. But some news make headlines precisely because of politics, such as the comments of MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace and Rachel Maddow following President Trump’s speech to Congress last week. Both focused on DJ Daniel, a thirteen-year-old brain cancer survivor who has always dreamed of being a police officer. During the speech, the president said to him, “I am asking our new Secret Service director, Sean Curran, to officially make you an agent of the United States Secret Service.”

After the speech, Wallace said, “I hope he has a long life as a law enforcement officer,” but added that she hopes he “never has to defend the United States Capitol against Donald Trump’s supporters.” Maddow called Daniel’s inclusion in Mr. Trump’s speech “disgusting,” accusing the president of making a “spectacle” of the boy’s illness while claiming that DOGE cuts have “cut off funding for ongoing research into pediatric cancer.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called their responses “sad and frankly pathetic.” And DJ’s father said Maddow “needs to shut her mouth if she has nothing nice to say.” He added, “This lady didn’t even serve time in the military. I was on the USS Kitty Hawk. She does not need to put her bad energy on us.”

Why we need “two strong and healthy parties”

The first time I traveled in Europe, I was surprised to discover the monolithic nature of the various cultures I experienced. Most of these countries have a history dating back millennia. Over the centuries, many have self-selected into particular demographics, languages, and societies.

When people came from these various countries to the New World, however, they created a nation of colonies that became states, many with widely different cultures. The Founders’ solution was to make a governmental system that recognized and gave agency to these various constituents.

As Yuval Levin shows in his brilliant book, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again, the checks and balances built into our governance are a feature, not a bug. Our leaders are elected by districts and regions with very specific social features. Then they work together to represent these constituencies while serving the common good. Our president is the only leader elected by the entire nation; everyone else represents America’s broad diversity in hopes of fulfilling our national motto, E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one.”

As a result, partisan agendas and political parties that reflect and advance them are a necessary part of our democracy. As Peggy Noonan writes in her latest Wall Street Journal column, “two strong and healthy parties vying for popular support is good for the country.”

Who was “the most trusted man in America”?

While our governance was intended to represent the spectrum of subjective partisan politics, the media is a different story. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. But no one elects the press, nor are they paid a government salary for their service. As a result, media is a business that must make money, typically through subscribers and advertisers.

For much of my lifetime, they did so by being objective. People watched Walter Cronkite each evening because he was widely considered “the most trusted man in America.” No one knew what partisan views he espoused personally. Media platforms made money by appealing to the broadest possible audiences, primarily through their objectivity. Newspapers had opinion sections, of course, and were known in these sections for partisan alignments, but the rest of the paper was thought to be objective reporting.

Then came cable news, disrupting the “big three” networks by offering a plethora of competitors, and social media, disrupting the “legacy” news organizations in the same way. Competition for “eyeballs and clicks” grew fierce. As analytical data enabled platforms to target specific demographics, media began focusing on particular partisan audiences. Companies began advertising on platforms targeting the audiences they felt were most likely to buy or consume their products.

As a result, Nicolle Wallace and Rachel Maddow know precisely the political views of their constituents and spoke to them after the president’s address. Those who disagree with these views will obviously disagree with their comments. Those who agree with these views will applaud their responses.

The Founders relied on a commitment to objective truth and consensual biblical morality to unify the disparate factions of the nation. Now that our “post-truth,” post-Christian culture has abandoned both, it is hard to see a path forward for our secularized society short of a unifying national crisis.

The good news is that there is a way to live above partisan noise and conflict available to any who will choose it.

“It’s not about success and failure”

The Westminster Shorter Catechism states, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”

The former leads to the latter.

Because we are “created for [his] glory” (Isaiah 43:7), we are to “glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:20) and in all we do: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).

This is not because God is a divine egotist. Rather, when we seek to honor and revere God, we humble ourselves as creatures before our Creator. We serve a cause greater than our fallen “will to power” and partisan agendas. And the closer we get to him, the closer we draw to each other.

In this way, when our “chief end is to glorify God,” we “enjoy him forever”—in this world and the next.

Pastor and author Mark Batterson wrote:

“It’s not about success and failure. It’s not about good days and bad days. It’s not about wealth or poverty. It’s not about health or sickness. It’s not even about life or death. It’s about glorifying God in whatever circumstance you find yourself in.”

Do you agree?

Quote for the day:

“We must learn that the glory of God is to be preferred before all other things.” —Ezekiel Hopkins (1633–1690)

Our latest website articles:

• Why you should go back and watch the Gather25 Conference: Finding hope in what God is already doing around the world
• Meet Donna Kalil: the first woman to hunt pythons full-time: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”
• Dolly Parton’s husband dies at 82: What we don’t know about people doesn’t change their reality
• A review of Mark Sayers’ “Non-anxious Presence”: How to lead in an unstable culture
• Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame? A reflection on sin, forgiveness, and consequences

Denison Forum

Why trust is the quality we can least afford to lose

News broke Thursday morning that President Trump was planning to sign an executive order instructing newly appointed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin dismantling the Department of Education. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt quickly wrote on X that such an order would not be signed on Thursday, though it’s perhaps telling that she did not refute the idea that such an order could come soon.

As of this morning, that order has still not been signed, though the situation could change quickly. And while the timing is still uncertain, Trump seemed to indicate that it won’t be long: “I want to just do it . . . I mean, we’re starting the process. We’re trying to get the schools back into the states.”

But why is dismantling the department such a high priority for the President? And what would it look like if he was able to succeed in doing so?

Before we can answer those questions, we first need to understand a bit more about what the Department of Education actually does.

What does the Department of Education do?

Congress created the Department of Education in 1979 to consolidate the various education programs that had previously been spread among different agencies. Ronald Reagan campaigned on dismantling it the following year, and seeing the department dissolved back into its disparate elements has been a goal for many Republicans ever since.

But while the department is responsible for a variety of education-related services, it doesn’t have nearly as much of an impact on high school and below as you might think. The states still set the curriculum and local school boards have far more influence over what is taught and how schools are run than the federal government.

Moreover, the states pay for roughly 90 percent of public education, with the remainder coming from the federal level. Still, that 10 percent is often enough for the federal government to wield a good bit of influence over what is taught, as evidenced by both the push for LGBTQ rights under Biden and warnings against the “indoctrination” of children under Trump.

The bulk of the Department’s energy and resources, however, is aimed at programs intended to support low-income children or those with disabilities, as well as grants and student loans for those continuing their education beyond high school. Were Trump to be successful, those responsibilities would return to other areas within the government.

Given that completely dissolving the Department of Education would require sixty votes in the Senate—Republicans currently have a 53-seat majority—it’s unlikely that the President will be able to accomplish his goal. And McMahon acknowledged as much in her confirmation hearings. Instead, the most likely outcome is that anything that can be jettisoned or reassigned will be, with the remainder forming a shell of what the department is today.

Would such a shift solve the problem? More than 60 percent of Americans seem dubious, though the latest polling also shows that both confidence in public schools and satisfaction with the quality of education they provide are not trending in the right direction.

Change of some sort is clearly needed, and it’s not hard to see why.

When trust is lost

In a recent article for Law & Liberty, Frederick M. Hess analyzed the loss of trust that many parents still harbor against the public education system in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Early on, when so much was still unknown about the virus, closing schools seemed like a necessary and correct precaution. As Hess points out, though, “By summer 2020, it was increasingly clear that kids weren’t at risk and weren’t major sources of spread.”

At that point, it made sense for schools to open back up to in-person learning, and many did while taking precautions like requiring masks, social distancing, and other steps that were—at that time—considered helpful to prevent the spread of the virus.

However, many not only remained closed but were heavily critical of any suggestions they should do otherwise. Their resolute rejection of calls to return to the classroom, coupled with clear evidence that the closures were “having devastating effects on youth learning, well-being, and mental health,” eroded much of the confidence parents used to have in the institutions entrusted with their children.

The fact that teachers were not considered “essential workers” in the same vein as doctors, sanitation workers, and grocery store clerks further inclined many to question the significance of their role.

To be clear, that assessment is not accurate for most teachers, who are routinely underpaid while devoting long hours and their last shreds of sanity to foster an environment in which children can learn and grow. And it seems like most parents still trust the individual teachers responsible for instructing their kids.

However, public trust in the teachers’ unions and the larger apparatus that enabled so many Covid-era policies to endure beyond the point of necessity in many parts of the country has not returned. And there’s an important lesson in that reality for each of us today.

The first step to rebuilding trust

For the most part, people understand that we’re not perfect. All of us make mistakes, and what matters most is what we do after. Will we try to explain away our errors, or even double down on the notion that we’ve been right all along? Or will we own up to them, ask forgiveness, and try to make things right going forward?

Having the humility to admit when we’re wrong is the first step toward rebuilding trust, and that’s just as true for you and me as it is for presidents, union leaders, and everyone in between.

Fortunately, today is likely to bring each of us the chance to practice such humility in the face of our mistakes. The question then becomes, how quickly will you take advantage of that opportunity? Will you respond in arrogance and defiance or humbly admit your mistake and ask for forgiveness?

Which path you choose is likely to have a profound impact on the degree to which others feel like they can trust you in the future. And, considering the impact of our witness is based largely on the degree to which people find us trustworthy, learning to face our mistakes well should be among our highest priorities.

I don’t know what will ultimately happen to the Department of Education, but I suspect its fate would be different—or at least the path to its dismantling more difficult to tread—if public trust in its institutions and those in charge of them were higher. And while their response to the pandemic was not the only reason why that trust has waned, it certainly had a role to play for many parents and citizens.

Will the same be true in your life? Will you move forward as if your sins and mistakes never happened, or will you own them and ask for forgiveness?

Only one of those answers can position you to experience the fullness of God’s loving mercy and help others to do the same.

Which will you choose today?

Quote of the day:

“Nothing sets a person so much out of the devil’s reach as humility.” —Jonathan Edwards

Our latest website articles:

• Buying the “Cheetozard” and playing Monopoly with apps
• Why you should go back and watch the Gather25 Conference
• A review of Mark Sayers’ “Non-anxious Presence”
• The latest on tariffs, Ukraine, and Gaza
• Oval Office showdown, more tariffs, Oscars results & a landscaping hot take

Denison Forum

“An extraordinary display of partisan scuffling”

President Donald Trump spoke to a joint session of Congress last night. This was not a State of the Union address. Rather, it followed the precedent set by President Reagan in 1981 and continued by every president since as they delivered speeches to Congress and the nation in the months after being inaugurated.

The one-hour, forty-minute address was the longest of its kind. Mr. Trump defended his policies, casting his first month in office as the most successful in history. He said he received a letter earlier in the day from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, saying he was ready to sign a proposed minerals deal between the two nations. And Mr. Trump said the mastermind of a 2021 bombing during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan had been detained.

However, seven minutes into the speech, Rep. Al Green (D., Texas) was escorted out of the chamber after rising from his seat and shouting at the president. Numerous other Democrats marched out of the chamber of their own accord; by the time the address was over, their side of the aisle was half empty.

Many Democratic women wore bright pink in a display of defiance. Some Democrats held up protest signs during the address. Others refused to attend; one hosted a Facebook Live town hall instead.

The Hill called Democrats’ actions “an extraordinary display of partisan scuffling even by the standards of the polarized modern era.”

The higher the stakes, the higher the emotions

If you support President Trump and his policies, you probably find these responses frustrating. If you agree with the Democrats, you may find their responses appropriate and even necessary.

We can wish for a system of governance that is less fraught with partisan conflict. But I have witnessed personally the alternatives available today and cannot recommend them to you.

I have traveled over the years in Cuba, China, and Russia. None see protests within their governments against their leaders, but this is because they are led by autocrats who severely punish dissent. By contrast, dissent and even chaos are common features when parliaments meet in the UK, Israel, and similar countries. This is because all (or at least most) of the viewpoints held in their nations are represented in their governments—often loudly.

Political opposition and division have been a part of American governance throughout our history. In the presidential election of 1800, for instance, John Adams’ camp warned that should Thomas Jefferson win the presidency, the US would become a nation where “murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will openly be taught and practiced.” Jefferson’s camp in turn called Adams a “gross hypocrite” and “one of the most egregious fools on the continent.”

The higher the stakes, the higher the emotions.

What has changed over the years is the degree to which politics have become a religion for many. At the same time church membership and identification with Christianity have declined, political issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage have become more urgent and polarizing. Social media has enabled many to find community not in a religious congregation but within “tribes” of political alliance and allegiance. Demonizing the other side has become a central strategy of political campaigns and engagement.

As Gerard Baker laments in the Wall Street Journal, traditional media has taken on this religious tenor, advancing partisan agendas as orthodoxies and marginalizing or canceling those who disagree. Rather than holding leaders and parties accountable as neutral arbiters of nonpartisan fairness, they have become “like prayer books for a believing congregation . . . tending to the emotional well-being of committed believers.”

When politics replace religion

When politics replace religion, here are some consequences:

• If our nation is to flourish, our leaders must be infallible, since we have no higher authority to trust.
• Our citizens must be infallible in their political choices and personal conduct, since we have no wisdom or accountability beyond our own.
• Those who disagree with us are by definition the enemies of what is right and good and must be opposed in any manner necessary.
• Vengeance and retribution are ensured when the other side inevitably regains power.

As a result, participatory governance fails, leading either to autocracy or civil war.

By contrast, Julian of Norwich (1342–c. 1416) testified: “God is the ground and the substance, the very essence of nature; God is the true father and mother of natures.” When we worship and serve him as our Lord and King, making our political aspirations and engagements a means to the end of loving our Lord and our neighbor (Matthew 22:37–39), here are some consequences:

• We know that our leaders are fallen and fallible, so we pray for them (1 Timothy 2:1–2) and support them (Romans 13:1–7). If we must choose, however, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
• We know that citizens are fallen and fallible, so we hold each other accountable to biblical truth and morality with honesty, compassion, and humility (Ephesians 4:2, 15).
• Those who disagree with us are opponents rather than enemies, so we treat them with the respect we would wish from them (Matthew 7:12).
• Vengeance and retribution are rejected, forgiving as we have been forgiven by Christ (1 John 1:9).

As a result, participatory governance flourishes as the means by which we serve each other to the glory of God (cf. Acts 2:42–47; 4:32–37).

Abraham Lincoln famously warned, “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” The choice is ours.

“Words which do not give the light of Christ”

As you respond to last night’s presidential address to Congress, will you view those with whom you disagree through the lens of religious charity or political division? Will your words and actions promote gracious unity or partisan rancor? Will they enhance your witness for Christ or drive people further from your faith?

Mother Teresa noted,

“Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness.”

Which kind of “words” are more common in our culture?

Which kind will you share with the world today?

Quote for the day:

“Our forgiving love toward men is the evidence of God’s forgiving love in us.” —Andrew Murray

Our latest website articles:

• Why are celebrities dressing in immoral ways? “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1)
• The power of being seen & valued

• Adrien Brody’s second Oscar puts him in rare company: Why “you’ve got to be believed to be heard”
• A review of Rebecca McLaughlin’s “No Greater Love”: A call to see friendship as an extension of our faith
• Will Pope Francis resign? Should he? “Stay faithful to the last word you heard from God”

Denison Forum

How the conflict is both complex and simple

The Trump administration is pausing all aid to Ukraine, including weapons, days after a contentious meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump.

In related news, the UK and France are seeking to forge a European “coalition of the willing” to secure a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. This comes as France proposes a partial one-month truce between Russia and Ukraine, and Mr. Zelensky says Ukraine is “still ready” to sign a minerals deal with the US. However, he also says a deal to end the war with Russia “is still very, very far away.”

This ongoing controversy over the way forward in Ukraine is both highly complex and very simple.

How the conflict is complex (part one)

It is highly complex in that there are so many competing agendas in conflict with each other. For example, consider the press conference last Friday in the Oval Office staged to discuss the signing of a rare earth minerals agreement between Ukraine and the US.

Forty minutes in, Vice President Vance advocated for diplomacy to end the conflict; Mr. Zelensky then began to argue with him, citing times Vladimir Putin has violated diplomatic agreements and asking, “What kind of diplomacy are you speaking about?” A heated argument ensued, ending the press conference and postponing the signing ceremony that was to follow.

If I had not seen the press conference but only read opinions about it, they would seem to be discussing completely different events. Republican leaders blamed Mr. Zelensky for the conflict; one castigated him for having “the audacity to disrespect” the president. Democrat leaders blamed Mr. Trump; one called him “a lapdog for a brutal dictator in Moscow.”

This is unsurprising: in our divisive political climate, many people consider anything President Trump does to be either entirely right or entirely wrong. Many partisans are convinced the other side is not just wrong but evil—and you don’t compromise with evil. So every political story descends into name-calling and point-scoring for “our” side against “their” side.

How the conflict is complex (part two)

Then there are the basic facts of the conflict:

• President Zelensky wants security guarantees from Europe and the US to keep Russia from invading again. In his view, Ukraine is fighting Vladimir Putin on behalf of the West. If Russia captures Ukraine and then proceeds to invade a NATO country, America and Europe will be drawn into a world war.
• European and US leaders know that if they grant such guarantees and Russia invades Ukraine, World War III will ensue. Since both sides have nuclear weapons, such a war could endanger mankind.
• President Trump sees this as a European conflict and therefore believes European nations should do more to support Ukraine and the US should be less involved.
• Vladimir Putin sees any Western presence or influence in Ukraine as an encroachment on Russian sovereignty paving the way for another invasion of the Motherland.

Last Friday’s press conference should be viewed through the prism of these contradictory facts.

Mr. Zelensky was frustrated that the proposed rare earth minerals agreement did not include security guarantees he believes are crucial for his nation. Mr. Trump was frustrated that Mr. Zelensky did not seem grateful for the help he had been given and turned a press conference into a debate. Both then argued for what they believe is in the best interest of the nation they serve.

And so the conflict continues.

How the conflict is simple

I said earlier that this conflict is both complex and simple. Here’s the simple part: Ukraine and Russia want the same territory. Both consider it part of their historic homeland and vital to their sovereignty and security. If one wins, the other must lose.

Such a zero-sum dilemma is at the heart of most intractable conflicts across history.

For example, Israelis and Palestinians both venerate the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. To the Jews, it is where Abraham offered Isaac and their temple was built. To the Muslims, it is where Abraham offered Ishmael and the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. Both sides want the same “rock” and the land it represents.

The only way to resolve a zero-sum dilemma without conflict is to change the terms of the engagement from win-lose to win-win. This involves compromising what I want to enable what you want. The more I must sacrifice to make such a compromise, the more I must value your best as I value my own.

Imagine a world in which Russia values Ukraine’s sovereignty and flourishing as much as it values its own. Or a world in which Palestinians and Israelis want the same prosperity and freedom for each other that they want for themselves.

Such a world is the intention of Jesus’ second Great Commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39, quoting Leviticus 19:18). He did not tell us to love our neighbor only when we agree with them. (That would be so easy as to need no such directive from our Lord.) He told us to love them “as yourself.” And you love yourself even when you don’t like yourself. In fact, you love yourself even when you despise something you have done to yourself or to someone else.

This is how we are to love our neighbor, whether they are a person or a nation.

“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb”

Of course, such selfless love is impossible for fallen humans, which is why zero-sum conflicts continue in our families, communities, and the world at large. But while we cannot fulfill God’s word in our strength, the good news is that we don’t have to.

The love Jesus commands is a “fruit” of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), one result of the Spirit’s work in every life yielded fully to him (Ephesians 5:18). If both sides in the Russia/Ukraine war would submit themselves to Christ as Lord and surrender to his Spirit, he would empower them to forgive each other, seek each other’s best, and live together in harmony.

You might say this is impossible, but remember: The Spirit transformed a Christian-persecuting zealot into the greatest advocate and apologist for the Christian movement in history (Acts 9). He transformed a Gentile-rejecting Jew into a missionary to a Roman centurion and his family (Acts 10). He is working today to conform you and me to the character of Christ (Romans 8:29).

And no one in human history loved his neighbor as himself more than our Savior.

Jesus is grieving over the horrific war in Ukraine right now. He is also grieving over any zero-sum conflicts in your life and mine. He loves your neighbor so much that he died for them. Now he wants you to love them as he loves you.

One day “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb” (Isaiah 11:6). That day can come for your heart today.

Quote for the day:

“To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.” —C. S. Lewis

Our latest website articles:

• Adrien Brody’s second Oscar puts him in rare company: Why “you’ve got to be believed to be heard”
• A review of Rebecca McLaughlin’s “No Greater Love”: A call to see friendship as an extension of our faith

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali proclaims the gospel at debate over religion: Why the West needs Christianity, not just religion
• Will Pope Francis resign? Should he? “Stay faithful to the last word you heard from God”
• 70 Christians beheaded in the DRC: How to pray in the darkest of situations

Denison Forum

The “wokeness” of Hollywood and the legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Anora won for Best Picture at last night’s Academy Awards and five Oscars in all. According to NPR, the film is “the story of a sex worker who marries a former client and gets mixed up with some Russian oligarchs.” I had to quote them since I will not see the film due to its graphic nudity. It also normalizes prostitution, euphemistically called “the sex worker community.”

Great cinema is apparently in the eye of the beholder. And many of the beholders are not many of us.

The Atlantic headlined, “The Oscars Have Left the Mainstream Moviegoer Behind.” NPR reports that the more popular the movie, the less likely it is to win awards.

Then there are the politics. Host Conan O’Brien made a joke about President Donald Trump’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying of Anora, “I guess Americans are excited to see somebody finally stand up to a powerful Russian.” The audience cheered loudly.

Daryl Hannah voiced a traditional Ukrainian battle cry when she took the stage to present the award for Best Film Editing. Some actors wore Gaza “red-hand” protest pins that many Jews consider an explicit reference to a 2000 incident in which a group of Palestinians murdered Israeli reservists and then held up their bloody, red hands to the delight of a cheering crowd.

It wasn’t always this way.

Has “woke” content “killed the Oscars”?

When Marlon Brando protested Hollywood’s treatment of Native Americans in 1973 by sending an activist named Sacheen Littlefeather to refuse his Best Actor Oscar for The Godfather, his gesture was met with mockery and boos. (Ironically, she was later found to have fabricated her claims of Native heritage.) In 2003, when Michael Moore used his Oscars acceptance speech to launch a tirade against George W. Bush and the war in Iraq, he was also booed.

However, as Kat Rosenfield writes in the Free Press, “The dawn of social media and the rise of Trump, as well as a media class that dutifully exerted itself to ostracize those who failed to support the proper progressive causes, made it increasingly untenable for actors even to remain neutral on political matters.”

As a result, the 2024 election cycle saw a political ad voiced by Julia Roberts, a Democratic National Committee headlined by Oprah Winfrey, and the cast of The Avengers assembling to campaign for Kamala Harris. (The former vice president was planning to appear at last night’s Oscars, but security concerns led her to stay home.)

One critic alleges that Hollywood’s pivot to “woke” content and advocacy has “killed the Oscars.” But many in Hollywood don’t seem to have gotten the message.

Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin.

By contrast, over the weekend, my wife and I watched Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin. The film was released last November, but we missed seeing it in theaters and were deeply grateful to have caught it on video.

The movie tells the incredible story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a brilliant German theologian and pastor who opposed the rise of Naziism and its takeover of much of the German church. He could have stayed in the US and protested Hitler from a considerable platform of cultural and theological influence, but he felt that he had to return to his native country to join the effort to end the Third Reich for the sake of the Jews and his own people.

As a result, he was hanged just two weeks before American soldiers liberated his concentration camp.

Given the political leanings of Hollywood these days, it is unsurprising that Bonhoeffer was not nominated for an Academy Award. But comparing it with the films celebrated last night raises a point worth reflecting on long after the Oscars are forgotten.

Why actors advocate for social causes

You and I were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and therefore have his innate desire to protect and improve his creation (Genesis 2:15). However, if we do not submit this desire to his Spirit, word, and will, we will use it to express our own “will to power” as our own gods (Genesis 3:5).

This is the lens through which I see the desire of many in Hollywood to promote social causes. They want to believe that they are making a difference that matters. They know, as actor Gabriel Basso said recently in criticizing politics in his industry, that they’re “there to entertain” and that their work makes no appreciable difference in the world on its own merits.

Movies don’t plant crops, build bridges, or end wars. And so they want to use their platform to influence people to do what they cannot do themselves.

I feel the same impulse. While I pray that the Spirit uses my words to change hearts and lives, I know that they do not plant crops, build bridges, or end wars. So I work with the aspiration that they will influence people to do what I cannot do myself.

The difference is the outcome we wish to see in the world.

What to do “if you board the wrong train”

I believe it grieves God deeply when movies lambast biblical faith and glorify sexual immorality, antisemitism, and self-reliant egotism. But it glorifies him when movies promote people and stories that honor him and advance his kingdom.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer called us to the latter: “Being a Christian is less about cautiously avoiding sin than about courageously and actively doing God’s will.” He therefore taught us:

• We must stay yielded to his will: “We must be ready to allow ourselves to be interrupted by God.”
• We must make any changes that are necessary to align with God’s purposes: “If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction.”
• We must constantly put our beliefs into action: “Faith is only real when there is obedience, never without it, and faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience.”
• When we follow Christ fully, others cannot be the same: “Your life as a Christian should make non-believers question their disbelief in God.”
• Such a commitment comes at a cost: “Salvation is free, but discipleship will cost you your life.”
• However, such a life is worth all it costs and more: “Christianity preaches the infinite worth of that which is seemingly worthless and the infinite worthlessness of that which is seemingly so valued.”

As a result, Bonhoeffer famously claimed:

“When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”

Has Christ called you today?

Quote for the day:

“The time is short. Eternity is long. It is the time of decision.” —Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Our latest website articles:

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali proclaims the gospel at debate over religion: Why the West needs Christianity, not just religion
• Will Pope Francis resign? Should he? “Stay faithful to the last word you heard from God”
• 70 Christians beheaded in the DRC: How to pray in the darkest of situations
• Could AI chatbots take over therapy? How AI can become an idol
• Tariffs, Ukraine, North Korea, and strange state laws: Why “all politics is local” is bad for our souls

Denison Forum

The power to be “something you have never been”

President Trump has confirmed that the Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles will be invited to the White House, stating, “They deserve to be down here.” The team has already said they will come if invited.

However, there is history between the Eagles and Mr. Trump, and not just because he picked the Chiefs to win the latest Super Bowl and he supports Patrick Mahomes and his wife Brittany. After the Eagles won Super Bowl LII in 2018, the team and Mr. Trump publicly clashed and no visit took place. But their past is apparently not restricting their future.

In other political news, Democratic political veteran James Carville writes in the New York Times that his party should “roll over and play dead” in the face of Republican domination of the political landscape. He advises his fellow Democrats to “allow the Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight and make the American people miss us.” Then they should “make like a pack of hyenas and go for the jugular.”

One more story contributes to the theme I’d like to discuss with you: Country singer Kelsea Ballerini recently stopped a concert to scold fans for cursing out her ex-husband, Morgan Evans. When she performed her song “Penthouse,” widely believed to be about her 2022 divorce from the Australian country singer, fans apparently shouted an obscenity about Morgan.

“Guys, we have to stop saying that,” she told them. “Seriously, we’re three years past it, everything’s fine now.” As the crowd cheered, she continued: “Alright, for everyone that’s moving forward with their life, will you sing this with me?”

The moral dilemma that frames our culture

Past behavior is often identified as the best predictor of future behavior, but this does not have to be true. A strategic consultant to our ministry once told our team, “When you get new information, you can make a new decision.”

The Philadelphia Eagles and President Trump are apparently making a new decision. Kelsea Ballerini is obviously charting a new path regarding her former marriage. James Carville, by contrast, continues to advocate the acerbic politics for which he is famous.

At its heart, we are dealing with a moral dilemma as old as Western culture.

1. Bradley Thompsonis an author and political science professor at Clemson University. In his latest “Redneck Intellectual” column, he explainsthat Plato and Aristotle posited very different approaches to selfishness, which he calls the “moral issue of our time.”

In the Republic, Plato advocated for acting selflessly for the sake of others as our highest moral obligation. In the Nicomachean Ethics, by contrast, Aristotle taught that our first and most important relationship is with ourselves as we seek to act in the noblest ways and to possess what is objectively good.

To summarize his discussion: Should we do what is best for others or for ourselves?

Christianity answers, “Yes.”

“Martyrs” or “terrorists”?

The problem with both Plato’s and Aristotle’s theories is that they have no objective referent outside the individual who seeks to follow them. How are we to know when, for example, forgiving others is in their best interest? This seems to be the kind of sacrificial service Plato would commend. But if our forgiveness only reinforces and facilitates destructive behavior, it is in neither the best interest of those we forgive nor ourselves.

I’m sure James Carville would say that for Democrats to “forgive” Republicans and try to work with them would harm the nation and, ultimately, the Republicans who live in it. By contrast, the Eagles and President Trump seem to feel that forging a new relationship is in everyone’s best interest. Kelsea Ballerini certainly thinks so with regard to her former husband.

On the other hand, Aristotle wants us to do what is most noble and to possess what is objectively good. But how are we to define each? What the Islamic State calls “martyrs,” the rest of us call “terrorists.” Wealth can be either a means of doing good in the world or an idol that possesses those who possess it.

And, even when we know when it is best to forgive and sacrifice for others, or when we can identify what is most noble and best, how do we find the character and strength to follow through on these choices?

We have had the moral theories of Plato and Aristotle for two millennia, but we’re no better as a race than we were. What are we missing?

“Harking back to what you once were”

The central “brand promise” of Christianity is that we can be “born again” (John 3:3) as a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17) by the grace of Christ through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). The living Lord Jesus can make us the children of God (John 1:12) and manifest in our lives a character that changes us and changes our world (Galatians 5:22–23). When we submit to God’s Spirit (Ephesians 5:18), he guides us into “all truth” (John 16:13) and empowers us to do what we then know to be best (Acts 1:8).

Of course, the skeptic might protest that, as with Plato and Aristotle, we have had these biblical teachings for two millennia as well, but the human race does not seem to have improved. How are we to respond?

This decision to submit our lives to God as a “living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1) runs against the “will to power” that dominates our fallen nature (Genesis 3:5). This is a daily “dying to self” that positions and empowers us to experience and emulate the “abundant life” only Christ can give.

1. K. Chesterton noted, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

But when it has been “tried,” it has changed hearts and lives. It has turned cowardly followers into courageous apostles (Acts 4) and prejudiced skeptics into grace-centered evangelists (Acts 9–11). It “turned the world upside down” (John 17:6) and birthed the mightiest spiritual movement the world has ever seen.

In light of such grace, Oswald Chambers’ observation is both relevant and empowering:

“Beware of harking back to what you once were when God wants you to be something you have never been.”

Will you follow his advice today

Denison Forum

Gene Hackman, the two-time Oscar-winning actor, and his wife, classical pianist Betsy Arakawa, were found dead yesterday afternoon in their New Mexico home. Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza reported just after midnight Thursday that the couple had died along with their dog. He said there was no immediate indication of foul play, though he did not provide a cause of death or say when the couple might have died.

Celebrities make the news daily. It can be tragic news, such as the death of actress Michelle Trachtenberg at the age of thirty-nine. It can be good news, such as late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel’s update on his son Billy’s third open-heart surgery, saying the seven-year-old is now “in perfect health.”

It can even be mundane news: Kansas City Chiefs star quarterback Patrick Mahomes got a new hairstyle after his team lost the Super Bowl. And famed Chiefs tight end (who’s even more famous for his girlfriend) Travis Kelce shaved his beard after the loss.

What makes celebrities so famous (despite the obvious fact that they are by definition)?

One factor is our desire to look up to authority figures. This is good when we’re being protected and mentored by our parents or other people in positions to benefit us. However, the explosion of social media, coupled with a decline in religious interest, has made celebrities the new authority figures for many.

In addition, celebrities serve as aspirational heroes for those who see them as successful and wish to emulate and imitate them as a result. And there’s a bit of escapism in celebrity culture today: following their lives can relieve the monotony and stress of ours.

Has the decline of Christianity in the US “leveled off”?

By now you’re perhaps wondering what any of this has to do with an article that is supposed to discuss cultural issues in the context of spiritual truth. For the answer, let’s turn to good news on spirituality that may not be as good as it seems.

Pew Research Center has just published a study that is generating headlines this morning. Titled “Decline of Christianity in the US Has Slowed, May Have Leveled Off,” it reports that the Christian share of the US population has stabilized after years of decline, increasing from 62 percent to 63 percent (though down from 79 percent in 2007).

In addition, large majorities of us say we have a spiritual or supernatural outlook on the world. Quoting from the report:

• 86 percent believe people have a soul or spirit in addition to their physical body.
• 83 percent believe in God or a universal spirit.
• 79 percent believe there is something spiritual beyond the natural world, even if we can’t see it.
• 70 percent believe in an afterlife (heaven, hell, or both).

Here’s what bothers me: Many “spiritual” Americans treat God like another celebrity. We view him as an authority figure and see Jesus as an aspirational hero we want to emulate.

But all of this spirituality is on our terms.

No one forces us to go to movies or otherwise pay attention to the celebrities of our day. We do so only when we think doing so will be to our benefit. It is much the same for much of American Christianity. We separate the spiritual from the secular and religion from the “real world.” We are spiritual to the degree that spirituality benefits us and not when it does not.

In a day when only 22 percent of Americans are satisfied with our nation’s “moral and ethical climate,” how’s this working for us?

“An aspirational desire for tolerance of everything”

In their new book The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, technology billionaire Alexander C. Karp and his deputy Nicholas W. Zamiska lament:

A significant subset of our leaders, elected and otherwise, both teach and are taught that belief itself is the enemy and that a lack of belief in anything, except oneself perhaps, is the most certain path to reward. The result is a culture in which those responsible for making our most consequential decisions—in any number of public domains, including government, industry, and academia—are often unsure of what their own beliefs are, or more fundamentally if they have any firm or authentic beliefs at all.

They warn that this “abandonment of belief” has “left us unable to confront issues with moral clarity.”

Karp and Zamiska trace our secularism to Sigmund Freud’s depreciation of religion and especially to those in elite universities who have conflated belief in objective truth with “colonial” oppression (they particularly cite Edward Said’s very influential book 1978 book Orientalism). Then they show that communal commitment to the common good has been replaced by what Michael Sandel of Harvard describes as “market triumphalism”—we work not to improve the nation but our corporate and personal bottom line.

As a result, “An aspirational desire for tolerance of everything has descended into support of nothing.”

Their theme seems like something a Christian philosopher like me would write, doesn’t it? But even secular publishers like Penguin Random House can recognize our need for “moral clarity” and the consequences when it is abandoned.

“When they saw the boldness of Peter and John”

“Spirituality” on our terms is not enough. Treating God like a celebrity we can follow as we wish is not enough.

What every human soul needs is the relationship for which we were created with the God who created us. Nothing less than intimacy with the living Lord Jesus can transform us into the Christlike people our fallen society needs us to be.

In words that serve as a thoughtful critique of our celebrity culture, the British writer Nick Hornby noted:

“It’s not what you like but what you are like that’s important.”

I would amend his assertion to read, “It’s who you are like that’s important.”

For example: “When they saw the boldness of Peter and John . . . they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).

Will someone be “astonished” by you today?

Quote for the day:

“By opening our lives to God in Christ, we become new creatures. This experience, which Jesus spoke of as the new birth, is essential if we are to be transformed nonconformists. . . . Only through an inner spiritual transformation do we gain the strength to fight vigorously the evils of the world in a humble and loving spirit.” —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Our latest website articles:

• Two more aviation near-misses occurred this week: Are airline accidents more frequent?

• Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles to visit White House: The power to be “something you have never been”
• What does the Bible say about temptation?
• Roundtable discussion on faith, AI, and global unity with special guests Josh Miller and Dr. Ryan Denison
• My friend Scott Turner is now HUD Secretary: “Never let your circumstance define your ability or your opportunity to succeed.”

Denison Forum

What the war with Russia says about the future of war

Kyiv and Washington agreed yesterday on the terms of a draft minerals deal that Ukrainian officials hope will improve relations with the Trump administration and pave the way for long-term security commitments by the US. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky now plans to travel to Washington on Friday to see President Trump and formalize the deal.

There was a day when such incentives were ideological rather than economic as the West opposed the Soviet Union’s drive to impose Communism on the world. But Russia is not the USSR. It is a nation-state doing what Vladimir Putin thinks is in Russia’s (and his) best interest.

Understanding this shift from ideology to pragmatism is vital to understanding the world today—and finding peace with God, others, and ourselves.

“A reordering moment in international relations”

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker theorized that all human behavior consists of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. As a result, the decision to commit or refrain from a crime depends entirely on our weighing the benefit against the expected punishment.

According to Becker, “Some persons become ‘criminals,’ therefore, not because their basic motivation differs from that of other persons, but because their benefits and costs differ.” Accordingly, there are no crimes in a moral sense, just violations of arbitrary laws.

This amoral approach to morality absent of objective authority applies not just to individuals but to nations as well.

In his famous book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington predicted that group identities based on cultural distinctions would come to dominate geopolitics as the universalizing worldviews of the Cold War waned. In other words, the world would be dominated less by the conflict between Western values and Communist ideology than by nation-states pursuing their individual goals.

Recent years have proven him right. From Russia’s invasions of Ukraine to Iran’s aggression in the Middle East, China’s threats against Taiwan, India’s rising nationalism, and Europe’s growing populist movement, we are seeing what Foreign Policy calls “a reordering moment in international relations.” None of this is driven by what is objectively right; what seems to matter now is what is right for a particular nation (or ruler) in competition with the rest of the world.

“Temptation yielded to is lust deified”

I would very much like to claim that none of this applies to me personally. Since I know the Bible to be objectively true and biblical morality therefore to be incumbent upon me at all times in all circumstances, I strive always to do what is right because it is right and to refuse what is wrong because it is wrong.

But you already know that this is not really true for me any more than it is for you.

Paul’s transparent psychological reflections are helpful here. In Romans 7 he admitted: “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (v. 15). We can all agree that we sometimes (perhaps more often than that) do the same.

But then he added: “Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good” (v. 16). This is interesting. The fact that I do not “want” to do what is wrong shows that I know it to be wrong and that I agree with the “law” in this regard. If I do not want to lie, cheat, and steal, this shows that I know lying, cheating, and stealing to be objectively wrong.

But such knowledge is not enough, as Paul admitted: “I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out” (v. 18).

Oswald Chambers’ convicting observation is right: “Temptation yielded to is lust deified and is a proof that it was timidity that prevented the sin before.” The devil’s enticement is both simple and insidious: To make our supposed morality our fear of the consequences of immorality. Then we will do what we want to do, whether it is objectively right or wrong, based on what seems right or wrong for us at the time. And biblical truth and morality are jettisoned along the way.

So Becker is correct: Our behavior is often motivated by a fear of consequences rather than a commitment to biblical morality. What self-driven nation-states are doing in our fallen world, we are tempted to do as well.

Does any of this feel familiar to you?

“To set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace”

The answer to our dilemma is not in being more religious or trying harder to do better. If that didn’t work for the Apostle Paul, it is unlikely to work for you and me.

Rather, it is embracing what Paul discovered: “The law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2). Jesus’ death paid the penalty for all our sins (v. 3). Now we can “walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (v. 4). When we do, “to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace” (v. 6, my emphasis).

Here’s how I understand this process to work. If we submit each day to the Spirit of God, asking him to take control of our mind, emotions, and will (Ephesians 5:18), he will manifest his “fruit” in our lives (Galatians 5:22–23) as he molds us into the character of Christ (Romans 8:29). He empowers us to choose what is right because it is right, not simply to avoid the consequences of doing what is wrong. He enables us to live in victory over the temptations of the enemy (1 Corinthians 10:13) as “more than conquerors through him who loved us” (Romans 8:37).

But we must stay submitted and connected to him. This is why we are urged to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17) and to “give thanks in all circumstances” (v. 18). It is why we are warned, “Do not quench the Spirit” (v. 19) through sinful thoughts, words, and actions (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:5).

“Cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers”

The Spirit enables us to experience God’s love for us and to love him in response (cf. Romans 5:5). And, as we noted yesterday, when we love someone, we want only their best—whatever the cost to ourselves.

It was because Paul loved the people he served that he assured them, “I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls” (2 Corinthians 12:15) and could even “wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:3).

This is what it means to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). It is what happens when the Spirit produces the “fruit” of love in our lives (Galatians 5:22).

This is the only cure for the self-centered amorality of our nations and our souls. As a result, it is the only path to true peace in our war-torn world. Accordingly, it explains the old aphorism,

“Know God, know peace. No God, no peace.”

Will you “know peace” today?

Quote for the day:

“We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.” —William E. Gladstone

Our latest website articles:

• My friend Scott Turner is now HUD Secretary: “Never let your circumstances define your ability or your opportunity to succeed.”
• Taylor Swift’s lost followers and a shark survivor’s story: How my youth group changed my life
• Google AI makes breakthrough in biology: The benefit of AI scientists
• The New York Yankees change their historic hair policy: “Societies crumble not by the mile, but the millimeter”
• James Bond’s future and MrBeast’s mental health: “I am who I think you think I am”

Denison Forum

Why we seek “something larger than the material world”

What do these headlines in today’s news have in common?

• “Pope Francis shows slight improvement and resumes some work, while still critical, Vatican says”
• “World leaders flock to Kyiv to declare support on Ukraine war anniversary”
• “Roberta Flack, Grammy-winning ‘Killing Me Softly’ singer with an intimate style, dies at 88”
• “Lester Holt to Step Down as Anchor of ‘NBC Nightly News’”
• “Starbucks to Lay Off More Than 1,000 Workers”
• “American Airlines flight from NYC to New Delhi diverted to Rome, escorted by military jets”

One answer is that in recent years, we’ve seen versions of them all:

• Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II faced significant health declines toward the end of their lives.
• Yesterday marked the third anniversary of Russia’s horrific invasion of Ukraine, but this was not the first time Vladimir Putin invaded their land, much less the first invasion in their war-torn history.
• Wikipedia’s “List of 2025 deaths in popular music” had fifty-one entries before adding Roberta Flack.
• Norah O’Donnell ended her tenure as CBS anchor earlier this year.
• Applebee’s, IHOP parent Dine Brands, Panera Bread, and Outback Steakhouse parent Bloomin’ Brands have all laid off employees recently.
• Bomb threats have recently disrupted one hundred flights to India.

Connecting to a “transcendent realm”

Here’s one more fact that hasn’t changed: You have likely filtered everything you’ve read thus far through a prism labeled, “What does it mean for me?”

This is because you were made for a meaningful life and don’t want to waste your time on what doesn’t matter. Unlike everything else God invented, you were fashioned to partner with him by protecting and promoting his creation (Genesis 2:15). Next to fears related to survival and family, your greatest concern is that your life won’t have been significant when it’s done, that you won’t have made a difference that matters.

I’m the same way. So, according to psychologists, are we all.

That’s why one cultural psychologist encourages us to develop close relationships, connect to a larger community, engage in work that provides a sense of purpose and mastery, and especially connect spiritually with a “transcendent realm” so that we feel we are part of “something larger than the material world.”

This spiritual connection has been especially on my mind in light of some passages I encountered recently in my personal Bible study.

If Zeus told you to give away your home

In Exodus 5, Moses told Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lᴏʀᴅ, the God of Israel, ‘Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness’” (v. 1). However, Pharaoh responded, “I do not know the Lᴏʀᴅ, and moreover, I will not let Israel go” (v. 2).

This is to be expected. If Pharaoh does not “know” God (the Hebrew means to “know personally” or “understand”), why would he respond to a message purportedly from him? If someone told you that Zeus commanded you to give away your home, would you do it?

Jesus similarly told Pilate, “Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice” (John 18:37), but Pilate responded, “What is truth?” (v. 38). Because the Roman governor did not believe in “the truth,” or at least that Jesus spoke it, he put himself before his Savior and condemned Jesus to crucifixion.

Again, we should not be surprised. If a Muslim told you that the Qur’an was “the truth,” would you join her for Ramadan this Friday?

By contrast, Jesus declared: “Blessed . . . are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28, my emphasis). It is not enough to “hear” (the Greek means to “receive news of”) God’s truth as did Pharaoh and Pilate; we must “keep” it (the Greek means to obey as a lifestyle).

Here’s the catch: for fallen humans to “keep” God’s word, we need the help of God’s Son.

Don’t be distracted by this Daily Article

In Mere Christianity, CS Lewis wrote:

What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could ‘be like gods’—could set up on their own as if they had created themselves—be their own masters—invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside of God, apart from God. And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history—money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery—the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.

However, if we’re not careful, “something other than God” can include God.

Here’s what I mean: If we’re settling for anything less than a daily, transforming, intimate relationship with the living Lord Jesus, we’re not really experiencing God. We may be experiencing a religion about him, but we’re missing a relationship with him.

In this sense, all the Bible studies and worship services and Daily Articles in the world can be a distraction from the real thing—actually, the Real One. They are words about God rather than an engagement with him.

And like fishermen who study fish but never go fishing, our time hearing the word of God keeps us from keeping it.

By contrast, Oswald Chambers explained Paul’s transformation in this way:

“The mainspring of his life was devotion to Jesus.”

Paul did not just love the Lord—he was “in love with Jesus Christ.” And this changes everything.

When we are truly in love with someone, we love what they love and hate what harms them. We seek their best over our own. We would do anything to serve them—whatever it takes, whatever the cost.

So, may I ask: Would Jesus say you are “in love” with him today?

If not, why not?

Quote for the day:

“Nothing is more practical than finding God, that is, than falling in love in a quite absolute, final way. What you are in love with, what seizes your imagination will affect everything. It will decide what will get you out of bed in the mornings, what you will do with your evenings, how you spend your weekends, what you read, who you know, what breaks your heart, and what amazes you with joy and gratitude. Fall in love [with God], stay in love, and it will decide everything.” —Joseph Whelan, SJ

Our latest website articles:

• Google AI makes breakthrough in biology: The benefit of AI scientists
• After dropping 748 points Friday, what will stocks do next? “Aim at Heaven and you get Earth ‘thrown in’; aim at Earth and you will get neither”
• The New York Yankees change their historic hair policy: “Societies crumble not by the mile, but the millimeter”
• James Bond’s future and MrBeast’s mental health: “I am who I think you think I am”
• Victor Wembanyama’s blood clot and Zack Martin’s retirement: The joy of living in the moment

Denison Forum