Is the Christian faith a “leap into the dark”?

Normally I’d begin today with headline news such as Saturday’s shocking trade of superstar Luka Dončić by the Dallas Mavericks, last night’s Grammy Awards without a single Taylor Swift win, or this morning’s stock futures tumble as tariff wars begin between the US and key trade partners. However, I’d like to do something different by taking you on a brief journey that may seem to meander a bit, but we’ll get to the point by the end.

Let’s begin with a question: Are the Kansas City Chiefs getting preferential treatment from the NFL?

There was a dubious roughing of the passer penalty against Houston’s Will Anderson Jr. that extended a Chiefs drive in their playoff win over Houston. And a “catch” on a touchdown drive by Chiefs receiver Xavier Worthy on a ball that seemed to hit the ground. Worst of all, it seemed to all the world that Bills quarterback Josh Allen gained the necessary inches to convert a critical fourth-and-one in Buffalo’s loss to the Chiefs that denied them a Super Bowl berth.

Now add this: The Chiefs will wear their white jerseys in Sunday’s game. And teams wearing white uniforms win the Super Bowl 64 percent of the time.

It is undoubtedly good for the NFL when Taylor Swift shows up on national television to support her boyfriend, Kansas City tight end Travis Kelce; presumably, she’ll make another appearance this Sunday. And we all know that professional football is a business before it’s anything else. So numerous voices decrying the league’s “preferential” treatment of the Chiefs are upset. We can expect a crescendo of complaints as the big game nears this week.

Why are the Giants and the Jets so bad?

But here’s the thing: the National Football League is the most valuable sports league in the world, with teams worth a total of $163 billion. The NFL’s chief source of revenue is television money. The league is guaranteed $125.5 billion over the next decade, $3.92 billion per team. But Kansas City is only the No. 34 TV market in the country. New York City is first, but the Giants and the Jets are two of the worst teams in the league.

Meanwhile, the league’s two smallest markets—Buffalo and Green Bay—are perennial playoff contenders. The Dallas Cowboys are reputationally “America’s Team,” but they last appeared in the Super Bowl thirty years ago.

Taylor Swift aside, what would motivate the NFL to risk its reputation—and multi-billion dollar business—to favor the Chiefs?

In addition, it turns out that the Philadelphia Eagles are the “home” team for Sunday’s game (the designation alternates between the NFC and the AFC year by year) and chose to wear dark uniforms. So if there’s a conspiracy involving white jerseys, they’re in on it.

Now imagine the collusion that would be necessary for the league and its referees to cheat in favor of the Chiefs. Seven officials work an NFL game, with an eighth official working replays in the press box. Kansas City is playing in the Super Bowl again this year primarily because they have won seventeen straight one-score games (the outcome is decided by eight points or less). If we believe that the Chiefs are where they are because officials are determining the outcomes of games, that’s a lot of referees who have cheated in a lot of contests.

In June 1972, five men were caught burglarizing the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in the Watergate complex. They and their two handlers could not keep their conspiracy secret, leading to the eventual resignation of the president of the United States. Are we to believe that scores of referees, their families, and league officials have kept the “Chiefs conspiracy” a secret from the prying 24/7 news media circus for years?

And again, to what end?

Punxsutawney Phil vs. Staten Island Chuck

Speaking of conspiracies, Punxsutawney Phil gave us the bad news yesterday: six more weeks of winter are coming. But Phil is right only 35 percent of the time, ranking #17 among the groundhogs and other animals who “predict” the weather each winter.

Does this mean that a conspiracy exists to keep Phil in the news? His hometown in western Pennsylvania is home to less than six thousand people. I’m going with Staten Island Chuck, who represents the largest city in America and is right 85 percent of the time. Plus, I like his prediction better—he did not see his shadow yesterday, forecasting an early spring.

The origins of Groundhog Day date back to German settlers in the 1800s who celebrated the Christian festival of Candlemas on February 2, the midpoint between the Winter Solstice and the Spring Equinox. Early Christians thought a sunny Candlemas meant forty more days of cold and snow.

But here’s the larger story: Candlemas Day is another name for the feast of the Presentation of the Lord. Forty days after Jesus’ birth, Mary and Joseph brought him to the temple for the rites of purification and dedication prescribed by the Torah (Leviticus 12). On that day, a “righteous and devout” man named Simeon took the infant Christ in his arms and proclaimed him “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:25, 32).

Forty days from December 25 is February 2. Since at least the seventh century, candles have been used on that day to celebrate mass (thus “Candlemas”).

Four transformative facts

Now let’s connect some dots.

One: John’s Gospel calls Jesus “the Word” (John 1:1), translating the Greek word logos. The philosopher Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC) was the first to use this concept to describe the overarching Reason and Order that sustains an ever-changing world. Jesus embodies this Principle in ways Heraclitus could not have imagined (cf. Colossians 1:15–17).

Two: John also calls Jesus “the true light, which gives light to everyone” (John 1:9). So we know that he enables all who receive his light to experience the reason and order he best can give.

Three: This is why Jesus calls us to love God with “all” our minds (Matthew 22:37). It is why some of the most brilliant scientists and thinkers in history have been committed followers of Christ. And it is why we can believe in the truth of God’s word and the divinity of God’s Son based on remarkable evidence and compelling logic. Jesus’ resurrection, for example, was no conspiracy—it was a fact of history that has changed billions of lives. The Christian faith is not a “leap into the dark” but a journey into the light.

Four: Now you and I can “walk in the light, as he is in the light” (1 John 1:7). When we do, we will testify with the psalmist, “The Lᴏʀᴅ is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?” (Psalm 27:1). We will light the candle of faith as “a sign of the divine splendor of the one who comes to expel the dark shadows of evil and to make the whole universe radiant with the brilliance of his eternal life” (St. Sophronius).

And we will make every day Candlemas, knowing that,

“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5).

It never will.

Will you “walk in the light” today?

Our latest website articles:

• “’A Complete Unknown’ earns eight Academy Awards nominations: A jaw-dropping dramatization of Bob Dylan’s vagabond genius”
• “Tragedy over the Potomac: ‘Nothing short of a nightmare’”
• “Why did ‘Emilia Peréz’ actually receive 13 Oscar nominations? What the film about a transgender cartel leader could reveal about our culture”
• “The greatness and tragedy of Winston Churchill: My reflection on a personal hero and his ultimate failure”
• “A TB outbreak and a more dangerous bird flu strain: How God redeems death for an even greater good”

Quote for the day:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out late; only love can do that.” —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Denison Forum

When to stand on conviction and when to compromise

When President Trump first announced his list of cabinet nominations, his selection of former representative Matt Gaetz to serve as Attorney General garnered most of the attention. By the time he dropped out and Pam Bondi took his place, much of the initial concern regarding three of the president’s other nominations had fallen to the background. However, that changed earlier this week as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard all went before their respective Senate approval committees in what proved to be a contentious affair for each.

Kennedy endured two days of questions, as the position for which he was nominated required meeting with both the Senate Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Neither proved overwhelmingly receptive, with his past comments on abortion and vaccines dominating much of the conversation. While he still has a path to confirmation, that outcome appears far from certain.

The same could be said for Kash Patel, Trump’s choice to lead the FBI. Going into his hearing, Patel had the reputation of a hard and fast supporter of the president whom many believed—and not without cause—would be willing to use his office to go after those who had opposed the president in the past. But while that outcome is still possible should Patel be confirmed, his time before the committee argued against that notion.

Patel was more than willing to match the confrontational tone of the senators who opposed his nomination, but he also argued that many of the comments that had stoked fears were taken out of context or misunderstood. Listening to him offer those arguments, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Important context was missing from what the senators quoted, but that context would not completely absolve Patel of the accusations levied against him.

Still, Patel appears to have enough support among Republicans on the committee that his nomination will likely go forward without issue. However, the same cannot be said for the third of Trump’s controversial selections to appear before the Senate on Thursday: Tulsi Gabbard.

What is FISA 702?

As former Democrats turned Trump supporters, Kennedy and Gabbard were always going to have the greatest difficulty among the president’s nominees in finding acceptance from Senate Republicans. However, Gabbard’s hearing for her nomination to be Director of National Intelligence was particularly interesting in that what many thought would be the most contentious issue—her past stance on FISA Section 702—proved to be something of an afterthought.

As it currently stands, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows federal authorities to collect information and conversations without a warrant. But while the Act is ostensibly focused on foreign nationals, the basic framework often ends up capturing the private thoughts of American citizens as well. During her time in Congress, Gabbard repeatedly spoke out against the Act and even attempted to repeal it at one point.

Given that Section 702 provides much of the information with which the intelligence community makes its decisions, Gabbard’s past opposition to the Act put her at odds with those she would be charged with leading should she be confirmed as director of national intelligence. Yet, during the hearing, Gabbard repeatedly claimed that recent changes to the law have put many of those concerns to rest in her mind.

Ironically, it was the man who first revealed much of that government overreach—Edward Snowden—who may prove to be a far greater stumbling block to Gabbard’s confirmation.

Is Edward Snowden a traitor?

When pressed by both Republican and Democratic Senators to denounce Snowden as a traitor, Gabbard refused. Instead, she stated that he had “broken the law” and promised to advocate for steps to ensure that “we can prevent something like this from happening again.”

That response proved insufficient for the Senators who repeatedly pressed her to call Snowden a traitor. Such insistence seems like a strange stance to take considering Snowden has never been charged with treason. Moreover, constitutionally, treason is only possible when a person aids a country with whom Congress has declared war, which hasn’t happened since June 5, 1942.

Ultimately, Gabbard was right not to call Snowden a traitor, though it seems clear that the committee had a more nebulous understanding of treason in mind. Her choice not to do so, however, may cost her the confirmation.

Whether Gabbard’s decision not to denounce Snowden demonstrates courage and conviction or shortsighted obstinance is for each person to decide. And perhaps both can be true to some extent. Either way, though, her choice speaks to a principle that we would all do well to consider today.

Conviction or compromise? 

Some of the most influential people in the history of the church have been those willing to stand up for what they believe to be true regardless of how many people disagreed with them. From the apostle Paul to Martin Luther and a host of others, God has used that willingness to stand on an island to advance his kingdom in remarkable ways.

Of course, what God intends for good, Satan will always try to use for evil.

Many of those same people ended up driving others away or creating unnecessary conflict when they refused to prioritize common ground over relatively minor differences. In such moments, the key to knowing when to compromise and when to stand firm is letting God make that decision for you.

To be sure, there are certain truths to which the Lord has already said we must hold fast. Standing up for these core elements of the gospel with conviction will always be the right thing to do. But even then, the manner in which we share that truth will go a long way toward determining what the Lord can do through us.

For example, Satan is generally fine with us telling the truth so long as we don’t do it in love (Ephesians 4:15). Likewise, he’d surely prefer that we don’t share the gospel, but if our message is delivered with arrogance and derision rather than humility and grace then we are still likely to build barriers between the Lord and those he’s called us to reach.

While you and I are unlikely to ever stand before a congressional committee, God will make sure that all of us are given chances to stand for the gospel. So when your opportunity comes, will you be ready? Today is a great time to make sure your answer is yes.

Our latest website articles:

• The greatness and tragedy of Winston Churchill
• What to do when church members ghost your church
• “Nothing short of a nightmare”: Tragedy over the Potomac
• A TB outbreak and a more dangerous bird flu strain
• Woman still alive two months after receiving a pig kidney

Quote of the day:

“The virtue of courage is a prerequisite for the practice of all other virtues, otherwise one is virtuous only when virtue has no cost.” —C.S. Lewis

Denison Forum