As “Operation Epic Fury” continues, Iran and its proxies are expanding their response as they fire missiles at Israel and the Arab states. The US Central Command announced yesterday that three US service members have been killed in the conflict and at least five others seriously wounded. However, it stated that it remains steadfast in its “relentless campaign to defend the American people by eliminating threats from the Iranian regime.”

At the top of this threat list was Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. When news broke Saturday that he had been killed, one person in Tehran responded: “I think the Middle East has become a better place. Even [the] world has become a better place now.” A video shows teenagers at a school dancing and chanting over the strikes by US and Israeli forces; one says, “I love Trump.” An Iranian lawyer living in Los Angeles said, “It’s not an invasion, it’s a liberation. My support is behind this 100 percent.”

While large crowds in cities across Iran celebrated the news of Khamenei’s death, Iranian state TV showed mourners in Tehran packed into a square, dressed in black, with many of them weeping. The Iranian government has declared forty days of mourning and seven days of public holidays across the nation to commemorate Khamenei’s death.

Continue reading Denison Forum – A biblical reflection on the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei →

Explaining “Operation Epic Fury” and offering four biblical prayers

According to Israeli intelligence, Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, has been found dead after the US and Israel carried out air strikes early this morning on Tehran. The ayatollah’s body has reportedly been pulled from rubble left by the strikes.

This is the latest news on what may be “the most important day of the 21^st century so far.” Early this morning, US and Israeli forces launched “Operation Epic Fury.” In a video statement posted Saturday at 2:30 a.m. ET, President Trump stated, “A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.”

After describing the regime’s terrorist actions against America and the West since it took power forty-seven years ago, the president stated that “the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.”

He said this operation would “destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground,” annihilate their navy, ensure their proxies can “no longer destabilize the region or the world,” and “ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Continue reading Denison Forum – Ali Khamenei reportedly found dead in Tehran →

Casting lots over a dying man’s garments was considered a scandal in my biblical upbringing. Today, we call it a prediction market—and Wall Street calls it innovation.

The rapid growth and expansion of prediction markets have flooded the public marketplace, making it feel as if all of this is supposed to be business as usual, another opportunity to grow your financial portfolio like day trading or other, edgier ways to expand investment opportunities. We’re not yet two months into the new year, and major prediction market companies like Polymarket and Kalshi have dominated the headlines.

Polymarket opened up a pop-up “free grocery store” in New York’s Greenwich Village this past week, following a similar publicity stunt from fellow prediction market rival, Kalshi, which offered patrons $50 groceries in early February. Providing free/discounted food appears, on its face, to benefit a community, but there is a dark reality behind these goodwill efforts.

Many have heard of these companies, but few understand how they actually work. The mechanics are simple. A prediction market poses a question with a defined outcome, often binary, like “Will Candidate X win?” Traders buy shares that pay $1 if the answer is yes and $0 if it’s no. If those shares trade at $0.65, the market is implying roughly a 65% chance of a yes outcome.

As people trade, buying when they think the chance is higher and selling when they think it’s lower, the price updates in real time. The idea is that anyone who has a better read (new information, sharper analysis, faster synthesis) can profit by pushing the price toward a more accurate forecast. In that sense, the market becomes a living estimate shaped by incentives rather than expert judgment.

Continue reading Denison Forum – Betting on suffering: The moral crisis of prediction markets →

Why Artificial Intelligence is not afraid of nukes

When US forces captured former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the strike was broadly hailed as one of the more impressive displays of force in recent military history. In the weeks since, we’ve learned more about how they pulled off the attack so seamlessly, including that Anthropic’s AI tool, Claude, played a role in the operation.

Now, the nature of that role is still a bit nebulous, but Anthropic had quite a few questions about how the Pentagon used its technology. As a company spokesman stated, “Any use of Claude—whether in the private sector or across government—is required to comply with our Usage Policies, which govern how Claude can be deployed.” And a key part of those usage policies is that their AI cannot be used to “facilitate or promote any act of violence or intimidation.”

As we’ll talk about in a minute, AI has given plenty of reasons to be wary of crossing that line, but Anthropic had to know that this stance could pose something of a problem when it comes to the military applications of their tools. After all, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not been shy about the role he sees for AI going forward.

“The future of American warfare”

In December, Hegseth remarked that “the future of American warfare is here, and it’s spelled AI.” And at an event last month where the Pentagon announced it would be working with xAI in a similar capacity, he was clear that the Department of Defense would not “employ AI models that won’t allow you to fight wars,” which many took as a shot at Anthropic’s concerns.

To further complicate matters, it’s likely that the US has already used Claude to help the military prepare for a potential war with Iran. And while negotiations are ongoing, the mediator seems to be the only one who thinks they’re going well.

So, against that backdrop, Hegseth has given Anthropic until 5:01 this afternoon to decide whether to grant the US military unrestricted use of its technology. If they do not—and the early signs aren’t promising—then Hegseth has warned that he will consider either invoking the Defense Production Act to force Anthropic’s cooperation or list them as a supply chain risk, which could void any of the company’s other defense-adjacent contracts.

But whether Claude is deemed too essential to lose or too untrustworthy to keep, it could have a profound impact on Anthropic’s business going forward. Still, their concerns about how the military uses AI are not unwarranted, and a recent test by Kenneth Payne at King’s College London offers a good reminder of why.

Why Artificial Intelligence chose nukes

In an attempt to see how Artificial Intelligence would run a conflict if given the chance, Payne set ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini against each other in a series of simulated war games. The models faced off twenty-one times, taking a total of 329 turns. They also provided extensive reasoning for each of their actions.

As Chris Stokel-Walker described, “The AIs were given an escalation ladder, allowing them to choose actions ranging from diplomatic protests and complete surrender to full strategic nuclear war.” By the time they were done, at least one model chose nuclear war in 95 percent of the games. None chose to surrender, regardless of how bad things were going.

That’s not good.

And, as Tong Zhao at Princeton University pointed out, “Major powers are already using AI in war gaming, but it remains uncertain to what extent they are incorporating AI decision support into actual military decision-making processes.” While most countries seem hesitant to fully grant AI control over the keys to their missiles, it only takes one nation to set off a global catastrophe.

To this point, the principle of mutually assured destruction has prevented that scenario from playing out. But what if AI isn’t as afraid of death as people are? And what if it sees striking first as the most logical way to prevent its own destruction?

If Payne’s tests are any indication, those conclusions are not all that unlikely, especially as AI becomes more relied upon for background calculations and scenario building. As Zhao warns, “Under scenarios involving extremely compressed timelines, military planners may face stronger incentives to rely on AI.”

The US military already appears to be heading down that road to some extent, and it’s highly unlikely that they’re the only ones. And if someone chooses to cross that line, chances are that a very human fear will be the driving factor.

“Just trust me”

To be honest, when I consider this topic and where it could lead, fear is pretty high up on my list of responses as well. It’s weird to potentially watch the central plot of an apocalyptic film play out in real life. The logical side of me knows that it probably won’t get that far, but fear rarely has any use for logic, which is what makes it so dangerous.

I think that’s part of why Jesus spent so much time talking about fear and warning against letting it play an executive role in our decision-making.

Take Jairus, for example. When he approached Jesus to seek healing for his daughter, only to have someone come up while they were on their way to tell him that it was too late, Jesus told him “Do not fear, only believe” (Mark 5:36). In The Message, Eugene Peterson translates this command as “Don’t listen to them; just trust me.”

When fear threatens to consume our thoughts or direct our actions, hearing the Lord say “just trust me” can be exactly what we need most.

That doesn’t mean such trust will be easy or silencing the fears will be simple, but it’s a good reminder that the choice of whom we will listen to is always ours to make. And the more often we choose Jesus, the easier it gets to do so in the future.

So, where do you need to trust Jesus today? Are there any fears clawing at your heart and mind?

I’m still a bit freaked out by the AI stuff, and perhaps you are as well. My goal today, though, is to listen to God rather than fear, and to trust that he knows how it’s going to turn out. And, just as importantly, he promises to bring good out of it, no matter how it ends (Romans 8:28).

Holding tight to that promise won’t always make the fears go away—after all, sometimes they’re justified—but it can give us a new perspective on them, one born of peace rather than anxiety.

Let’s pray for that peace today.

Quote of the day

“Only he who can say, ‘The Lord is the strength of my life’ can say, ‘Of whom shall I be afraid?’” —Alexander MacLaren

Our latest website resources

• Our political future and an interview that moved me deeply
• USA hockey gold, State of the Union, tariff ruling, cartel takedown, Iran update & UFO files | Ep. 58
• Christian parenting in the age of AI and influencers
• Who was “El Mencho” and why should his death matter to you?
• A Christian response to the age of selective outrage

Denison Forum

Commentators are still responding to President Trump’s “State of the Union” address in the predictably partisan ways you would expect. Reactions have been from such polar opposites that an uninformed observer could question whether they are responding to the same speech.

I genuinely grieve to see the depth of rancor and bitterness that exists in our country toward fellow Americans with whom we happen to disagree politically. And I genuinely question whether our democratic experiment can be sustained while we sustain such animosity toward one another.

In 1774, John Wesley advised those who would be voting in an upcoming election:

1. To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy
   2. To speak no evil of the person they voted against, and
   3. To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.

Don’t you wish more Americans would take his advice?

Continue reading Denison Forum – Our political future and an interview that moved me deeply →

Reflections on the state of our union and our best future

President Trump delivered his annual “State of the Union” address to Congress and the nation last night. The speech was the longest ever, lasting 108 minutes, and covered a range of topics designed to buttress his party’s chances in the upcoming midterms.

A highlight for me and for many was the entrance of the US men’s hockey team into the House chamber. The president announced that he would be awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation’s highest civilian honor, to the team’s goaltender, Connor Hellebuyck.

Their story in winning the Olympic gold medal is inspirational on so many levels, among them the tribute paid by Jack Hughes, who scored the winning goal in overtime and later exulted, “This is all about our country right now. I love the USA. I love my teammates. It’s unbelievable. The US are a hockey brotherhood. It’s so strong and we had so much support from ex-players. I’m so proud to be an American today.”

Hughes made his remarks while missing two front teeth knocked out earlier in the game, which made images of him grinning while wrapped in the American flag especially iconic. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote, “There isn’t much that unifies all of America today, but the Olympic overtime victories by the US men’s and women’s hockey teams ought to qualify for anyone with a modicum of patriotic feeling.”

They titled their editorial, “Jack Hughes for President.”

When the other side is “immoral”

Judging from partisan reactions to Mr. Trump’s speech, the Journal board is right in their assessment of America’s unity or lack thereof. We should be saddened but unsurprised; in a Pew Research Center survey, 72 percent of Republicans said Democrats are “immoral,” while 63 percent of Democrats said the same of Republicans.

It is difficult to find common ground and make common cause with people whose character we find “dishonest,” “unintelligent,” and “close-minded” (other accusations the parties made against each other in the survey). When the other “side” is not just wrong but evil, how are we to forge a collective future with them?

In a now-iconic 1858 speech, Abraham Lincoln cited Jesus’ statement, “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (paraphrasing Luke 11:17). Mr. Lincoln was referring to slavery, but I wonder if he would issue the same warning with regard to our divisive time.

What is the way forward for our “United” States?

“Our country, right or wrong!”

The esteemed moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre once delivered a lecture that has outlived its context and its author. Titled “Is Patriotism A Virtue?”, it is one of the most thoughtful expositions of patriotism ever offered to our secularized society.

Dr. MacIntyre stated, “Patriotism is not to be confused with a mindless loyalty to one’s own particular nation which has no regard at all for the characteristics of that particular nation.” Conversely, he noted, “The morality for which patriotism is a virtue offers a form of rational justification for moral rules and precepts whose structure is clear and rationally defensible.”

He showed that morality, defined as adherence to objective ethical truths and principles, cannot be “patriotic” if the term is defined as unquestioned loyalty to one’s country. This version of patriotism was captured by US naval commander Stephen Decatur’s famous 1816 proclamation, “Our country, right or wrong!”

In this sense, the apostles were unpatriotic to the Jewish nation when they refused its leaders’ demand that they cease preaching the gospel (Acts 5:27–32). Christians today are similarly unpatriotic when we stand against unbiblical immorality such as elective abortion and same-sex marriage, despite their protected status in law.

I would counter that allegiance to biblical morality when it conflicts with our nation’s values is the most patriotic way to serve our nation. This is because obedience to God’s word leads us into our greatest flourishing and out of immorality that is destructive to our lives and country. If the apostles had ceased preaching the gospel when the authorities demanded that they do so, they would have deprived these leaders and the nation they served of the only path to salvation in this world and the world to come (cf. Acts 4:12).

Accordingly, we are at our most patriotic when we offer our nation what it most needs. And what it most needs is a personal relationship with our only Savior and the biblical truths that empower and enliven that relationship.

“To make us love our country”

Fifty-five years after Commodore Decatur’s proclamation, a German-born US general and US senator named Carl Schurz offered this clarification: “Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.” The great British political philosopher Edmund Burke similarly stated, “To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.”

Here’s the problem: Our secular republic does not possess the inherent resources to be such a country. Our founding creed endows us with the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but it does not and cannot define them.

What is “happiness” to you may not be to me. So long as the pursuit of our versions of happiness (theoretically) does not harm others, our jurisprudence permits and even defends it. Thus, as I noted yesterday, much that is immoral in America is not illegal. And the freedom to be immoral cannot unify a nation or sustain its future.

So, once again, we find that the gospel is the answer to the question, whatever the question is.

“The duty of all Nations”

Jesus alone can sanctify sinful hearts and infuse us with a love for our neighbor that promotes our highest patriotism. He alone can empower us to forgive our fellow Americans, past and present, for injustices of the past and the present. He alone can enable us to serve our country and people with sacrificial, selfless humility.

Abraham Lincoln was therefore right to assert in his First Inaugural Address:

Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.

Our greatest president echoed the wisdom of our first president when he began his 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation:

It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors.

To be at our patriotic best, let us perform all four duties today and every day, to the glory of God.

Quote for the day:

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” —George Washington

Our latest website resources:

• Who was “El Mencho” and why should his death matter to you?
• When I wish I were doing something else: An Easter word of encouragement for weary souls
• A Christian response to the age of selective outrage
• Is the American dream dead? Plus: James Van Der Beek, Robert Duvall, Jesse Jackson & Winter Olympics
• What does “I Can Only Imagine 2” teach us about faith and suffering?

Denison Forum

A reflection on geopolitics, morality, and our best future

On this day four years ago, Russia invaded Ukraine.

What became the largest ground war in Europe since World War II has reshaped global security, energy markets, and geopolitical alliances. Russian forces now occupy roughly one-fifth of Ukraine, with the front lines largely unchanged for months.

Attacks on Ukrainian energy, water, and railway infrastructure are continuing. The number of troops from both countries who have been killed, wounded, or missing is nearing two million. The war is forcing Russia to cannibalize its non-military economy to feed its war machine, with dire consequences for its future. By the end of last year, its army was losing more men than it could recruit.

Russia’s illegal and immoral attack on Ukraine continues to devastate Ukrainians as well. Millions have been uprooted from their homes, creating the largest and fastest displacement crisis in Europe since World War II. More than twelve million people have required humanitarian assistance.

Nor is this conflict likely to be limited to Ukraine.

After the war eventually ends, according to Finland’s 2025 military intelligence review, Moscow is expected to more than double the number of troops it stations along NATO’s northern frontiers. Last November, Germany’s defense minister said Russia would be ready to attack by 2029 and quoted “certain military historians” who said the continent had already lived through its “last peaceful summer.”

In December, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte announced that Russia could attack a NATO country in the next five years and warned that member states “should be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured.”

I’m certain that you believe Vladimir Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine and his ongoing threats to the future of Europe to be morally wrong.

My question is, Why?

Would you save your dog or a stranger?

I’m not asking if you agree or disagree with Putin’s supposed justifications for his actions. Or whether you can marshal geopolitical arguments for or against his regime. I’m asking why you believe there are such categories as right and wrong.

Your answer is crucial, not just to wars and politics but to the way you live your life today.

Public intellectual and author Dennis Prager’s latest book, If There Is No God: The Battle Over Who Defines Good and Evil, is being published today. I will read it as soon as possible, but I am grateful for the excerpt he shared with the Free Press. In it, he notes that humans can live by their feelings or their values, but not both.

He illustrates: If you would rather rescue your drowning dog than a drowning stranger, you are operating on feelings. If you prioritize the man you don’t know over the dog you love, you are operating on biblical values that identify humans as made in the image of God.

Unfortunately, as Prager writes, “The great moral tragedy of our time is that feelings have replaced values.” From abortion and euthanasia to the “sexual revolution” and all it has fostered, Americans are doing what feels right to them with no consideration for objective truths or moral standards.

In fact, many do not believe that such standards exist. They are absolutely certain that there are no absolute truths, despite the oxymoronic illogic of such a belief.

Then a horrific moral tragedy such as Putin’s invasion of Ukraine comes along, itself a consequence of such subjective immorality. And we are forced to grapple with the fact that if all morality is a matter of preference, we have no way to disagree with even the most monstrous evils in our world.

How to be moral people in a moral world

Of course, you and I know better.

We believe that our God is holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8) and that he has given us a book by which we can live according to the moral standards he requires (2 Timothy 3:16–17). We therefore have solid rational ground for branding Vladimir Putin’s atrocities as atrocities and his immorality as immoral. We can do the same with other “culture war” issues of our time.

Until, that is, we are forced to choose between feelings and values for ourselves.

I cannot think of the last time I faced a temptation in which I genuinely did not know right from wrong. In the moment, the conflict between what I want to do and what I know to do is the heart of the issue (cf. Romans 7:15–24). The same is true of omissions as well as commissions: “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 4:17).

There is no legal way out of this moral quagmire. All the laws in the world cannot force us to change our feelings about what we want; only the methods by which we seek to obtain it.

This is why, if we want to be moral people in a moral world, we need the transformation only Jesus can bring.

When Jesus is making us like himself

One day, “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb” and “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lᴏʀᴅ as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:6, 9). Until then, wars and conflicts, crimes and immorality will only cease to the degree that the Messiah, who will one day change the world, first changes us.

The path to our best future lies through our hearts.

This is why “preaching the word,” which was the core purpose of Jesus, must be ours as well (Mark 2:2). It is why sharing Christ with our neighbor is the most significant way we can love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:39).

And it is why we need to know our Savior so intimately that we become the change we need to see.

You and I can know that Jesus is making us like himself when we no longer want to do the wrong things we used to do, and we want to do the right things we used to avoid.

By this measure, how close to him are you today?

Quote for the day:

“You change your life by changing your heart.” —Max Lucado

Our latest website resources:

• When I wish I were doing something else: An Easter word of encouragement for weary souls
• A Christian response to the age of selective outrage
• The Focus: Why are the new voter ID laws so controversial?
• Is the American dream dead? Plus: James Van Der Beek, Robert Duvall, Jesse Jackson & Winter Olympics
• What does “I Can Only Imagine 2” teach us about faith and suffering?

Denison Forum

Any of these stories could be the focus of today’s Daily Article:

• The Winter Olympics concluded yesterday, with Norway winning forty-one medals and the US in second place with thirty-three. The US men’s hockey team won the gold medal in overtime, its first since the “Miracle on Ice” forty-six years earlier.
• A historic winter storm has placed fifty-nine million people in the Northeast under weather warnings today.
• At least fourteen people were killed yesterday, including seven National Guard troops, as violence erupted across Mexico after the army killed the country’s most-wanted drug lord.
• With US forces in place across the Middle East, President Trump is said to be considering his options for Iran.
• Authorities in Arizona are continuing their search for Nancy Guthrie more than three weeks after she disappeared.

But today, I’m focusing on Friday’s Supreme Court decision striking down President Trump’s global tariffs. I consider it an even more foundational story, though not for reasons you might think.

As you know, I lead a nonprofit ministry committed to neutrality with regard to partisan politics. It may therefore surprise you that I am writing this morning to claim that the Court’s decision is good news for every American.

The reason I can do so and remain missional is that my assertion has nothing to do with partisan politics or tariffs and everything to do with our national and cultural future.

 “If men were angels, no government would be necessary”

In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, historian Gordon Wood writes that our revolution “did not just eliminate monarchy and create republics; it actually reconstituted what Americans meant by public or state power and brought about an entirely new kind of popular politics and a new kind of democratic officeholder.” As political scholar Yuval Levin has written, “The Constitution establishes a politics in which no one is in charge and, therefore, in some sense, everyone is in charge.”

We tend to focus on the Founders’ positive view of humanity that counters centuries of European monarchical thinking with “all men are created equal.” In such a worldview, anyone can be elected president, sit on the Supreme Court, or serve in Congress.

But the Founders also understood the negative side of humanity. In Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Accordingly, Madison and the other framers of our Constitution created checks and balances to ensure no individual or group would possess unaccountable power. In our system, the Supreme Court can overturn the actions of the president, the president can veto laws made by Congress, and Congress can overturn court decisions through legislation (cf. the horrific Supreme Court Dred Scott decision of 1857 vs. the Civil Rights Act of 1965).

Laws can replace laws, as can constitutional amendments. Presidents and members of Congress can be replaced by voters, and they and justices can be impeached.

A foundational fact for our national future

This system is intended to prevail even in the face of partisan pressure.

For example, in his response to Friday’s ruling, President Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of some justices who ruled six-to-three against him. Vice President JD Vance similarly called the high court decision “lawlessness” in a post on X.

The Wall Street Journal headlined that the ruling “rips open Trump’s relationship with the Roberts Court.” The president especially singled out Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, whom he nominated in his first term, as a “disgrace to our nation.”

But he is abiding by the ruling and adopting other means of imposing tariffs. This outcome shows that our democratic republic continues to function 250 years after it was created. This is a foundational fact for which all Americans should be grateful.

I thought Christianity was a system of morality

However, a “government of laws, not of men,” as John Adams famously described our system, can only take us so far. Legality is a poor substitute for morality.

In our system, we can do whatever we want so long as we are not caught doing it. Much that is immoral and damaging to our lives and culture is nonetheless legal, from abortion and euthanasia to adultery, pornography, and same-sex marriage.

The only path to our best lives is one that changes not just what we do but the essence of who we are. This is an offer made by no legal system, worldview, or religion—except Christianity.

Only Jesus says we can be “born again” (John 3:3). Only he can make us a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Only he can change our hearts.

Our culture does not understand this. I didn’t know it for many years before I became a Christian.

And, to my point today, I overlooked it for many years after I did.

I thought Christianity was a system of morality by which I could please God and receive his blessing in return. Reading the Bible, praying, attending church, sharing my faith, and so on were the expected ways for Christians to behave. I believed the credo, “What you are is God’s gift to you; what you make of yourself is your gift to God.”

But what I could “make of myself” was not enough. Somehow in my soul I knew there was more than this. My “God-shaped emptiness” was not yet filled. To cite St. Augustine, my heart was still “restless” because it had not yet come to “rest in him.”

“Rejoicing for weariness and radiance for dreariness”

It was a spiritual formation course in seminary where I first became acquainted with the idea that God’s Spirit could make me like God’s Son, that if I would surrender my life to him every day, he would then transform me in ways I could neither imagine nor produce.

This is what famed missionary J. Hudson Taylor called the “exchanged life.” In They Found The Secret: 20 Transformed Lives That Reveal a Touch of Eternity, the late Wheaton College President V. Raymond Edman wrote:

It is new life for old. It is rejoicing for weariness and radiance for dreariness. It is strength for weakness and steadiness for uncertainty. It is triumph even through tears and tenderness of heart instead of touchiness. It is lowliness of spirit instead of self-exaltation and loveliness of life because of the presence of the altogether Lovely One.

Would you like to make such an exchange today?

Quote for the day:

“I used to ask God to help me. Then I asked if I might help him. I ended up by asking him to do his work through me.” —J. Hudson Taylor

Our latest website resources:

• A Christian response to the age of selective outrage
• The Focus: Why are the new voter ID laws so controversial?
• Is the American dream dead? Plus: James Van Der Beek, Robert Duvall, Jesse Jackson & Winter Olympics
• What does “I Can Only Imagine 2” teach us about faith and suffering?
• George Washington and the future of the “United” States

Denison Forum

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew of the English royal family, was arrested yesterday on his sixty-sixth birthday after the latest batch of Epstein files that were made public last month shed new light on his connections with Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. But while that connection has been known for years, the charges that landed Andrew in jail—at least for the time being—were not about the allegations of rape and assault that have trailed him for more than a decade. Rather, he was arrested for suspicion of misconduct in public office.

Essentially, Andrew stands accused of sharing confidential information with Epstein while the former prince served as an official trade envoy for England. The charges are a bit nebulous, as technically there’s no official statute that defines what they mean. Rather, they have evolved over time from Britain’s common law.

Even if the accusations are a bit underwhelming when compared with Andrew’s other alleged crimes—for which he’s never been convicted even if they are common knowledge—yesterday’s arrest still marks the first time that a member of the royal family has been taken into custody since King Charles I was tried and executed for treason back during the English Civil War in 1649. And it was apparently done without the family’s knowledge.

After Andrew’s arrest became public, King Charles III released a statement supporting the arrest and promising that police will “have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation. Let me state this clearly: the law must take its course.”

And it’s quite possible that Andrew’s arrest could change other lives as well as the law does just that.

A prince no longer

Last November, Andrew was urged to come speak before Congress regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their business of trafficking young women and girls. Back then, he declined to appear. However, it’s possible that the FBI could question him while he is in police custody in Britain.

Now that he is potentially facing life in prison, he has less to lose than when he was a free man. Would he trade secrets for a reduced or annulled sentence?

When he was stripped of his titles late last year, there was a good bit of speculation that part of the reason the king made sure he landed on his feet was to keep him from having to sell information to maintain his lifestyle. While the royal family can likely take steps to ensure that their secrets are kept safe, Andrew was close enough with Epstein that his testimony could prove pivotal in bringing others to some measure of justice.

And, given that he has essentially been cut out of the royal family in recent years—the separation became more absolute in the wake of Queen Elizabeth’s passing—he is likely to need all the help he can get. So, whether it’s before a London court or the halls of Congress, Andrew’s affiliation with Epstein and Maxwell is likely to continue making headlines for quite a while.

But why is that? Why does anything involving Epstein make headlines today?

On the surface, it sounds like a silly question. But, if you stop to consider it, I think it points to an interesting conclusion, and one far too many take for granted in our culture today.

“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”

Last week, cultural philosopher Paul Anleitner noted in response to the latest outrage over Epstein:

Here’s an uncomfortable truth about the Epstein accusations: We only find them morally reprehensible because of Christianity. Before the spread of Christianity, “civilized” Greek and Roman elites openly flaunted underage s*x slaves. This was normal. Emperor Hadrian built an entire city in honor of his favorite boy. We’ve heard for decades that Christianity is a barrier to moral progress, but if you undercut the moral foundations of Christianity from the West, culture reverts back to pagan norms.

While the cultural and moral development of the West is not quite that straightforward, Anleitner is correct. The driving force behind the changes from the Greco-Roman ethics of the ancient world to the Judeo-Christian morality that stands at the foundation of so much of Western society today was Christianity.

As the Greek historian Thucydides noted four hundred years before Christ:

You know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

While the sad reality is that we see that basic dichotomy at times in Christian history as well, many of the fundamental shifts in how people value individual human lives in our culture today owe a great deal to the gospel’s power to transform hearts and renew minds (Romans 12:2).

The question facing our society now is whether we can maintain the moral system built upon Christian ethics while rejecting the God who created it.

Jesus was pretty clear on the answer, and it’s not looking good.

One life at a time

At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus wraps up his teaching by telling his followers:

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 7:24–27)

In this passage, Jesus makes clear that it’s not enough to simply hear Christ’s commands or to have a vague understanding of what they mean. It’s only when we put those commands into action that we can find the kind of foundation necessary to weather the storms that will inevitably come our way.

Most people in America today have at least a passing awareness of who Jesus is and are even familiar with some of his teachings. But familiarity is not enough. Christ demands obedience, and nothing less will suffice.

We are blessed to live in a time when at least some elements of Christ’s commands for how we should live and how we should treat one another are already accepted as the morally right thing to do. That puts us head and shoulders above those first Christians, who lived in a world built on a view much closer to Thucydides than Jesus.

At the same time, though, the lost around us are unlikely to take that next step from awareness to obedience unless they see us do it first.

So, as we finish up for today, ask the Holy Spirit if there are any areas of your life where you’ve settled for less than full obedience? Are there cracks in your foundation, or rooms built on sand?

Most of us have some area we have tried to keep back as our own. But God’s promise is that they won’t hold up for long. And I fear the same will be true of our nation as well unless something changes.

And that’s where you and I come in.

God has given us the privilege of partnering with him in helping to bring our culture back to Jesus, one life at a time.

Where can you start today?

Quote of the day:

“There would be no sense in saying you trusted Jesus if you would not take his advice.” —C. S. Lewis

Our latest website resources:

• A Christian response to the age of selective outrage
• Is the American dream dead? Plus: James Van Der Beek, Robert Duvall, Jesse Jackson & Winter Olympics | Ep. 57
• What does “I Can Only Imagine 2” teach us about faith in suffering?
• Why are the new voter ID laws so controversial?
• Can caffeine and video games protect against dementia?

Denison Forum

It was the unseen interview seen “round the world.” On The Late Show Tuesday night, Stephen Colbert told viewers that CBS told him an interview he taped with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico could not be aired. According to Colbert, CBS was concerned about an FCC rule requiring broadcasters to give “equal time” to opposing candidates when an interview is broadcast with one of them.

The network, however, flatly denied Colbert’s claim, stating, “The Late Show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview.” It added that the network “provided legal guidance” and “presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.” The show then presented the interview through its YouTube channel, where FCC rules do not apply.

As of this morning, it has been viewed more than 7.4 million times, roughly triple what the CBS program draws each night. Mr. Talarico also reported that he raised $2.5 million in campaign donations in the first twenty-four hours after the interview.

You may side with Mr. Colbert in this ongoing dispute, you may side with CBS, or you may not care. But it’s worth noting that Mr. Colbert’s show will end in May. We might wonder if the fact that he has little to lose in his conflict with the network contributes to his willingness to stage it.

Continue reading Denison Forum – Stephen Colbert’s ongoing dispute with his CBS bosses →

Republicans have been trying to pass some version of voter ID laws for years, with the latest attempt set for a vote in the Senate coming soon. Few expect the bill to pass, though, despite overwhelming popular support. And the reasons why have less to do with the ID requirements than with the rest of what the law is trying to change.

Why it matters: Election integrity remains a focal point for the Trump administration and many in the Republican Party. If Democrats continue to oppose the SAVE America Act, it could prompt Republicans to remove or alter the filibuster in ways that would have a profound impact on how laws are passed down the line. Or, if the bill stalls, President Trump has promised to push it through via executive order, even though a similar attempt was already deemed illegal last year. Either way, the issue doesn’t appear to be headed toward a resolution anytime soon.

The backstory: Third time’s a charm?

For the third consecutive year, the House of Representatives has passed a version of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE Act for short. So far, it has died in the Senate each time without even getting a vote. Senate Majority Leader John Thune promised that it would not happen again, given that he now has the support necessary to bring it to the floor and force representatives to go on record as either supporting or rejecting it.

Still, few expect the law to pass. It would need sixty votes unless Republicans either get rid of the filibuster—a step leadership has repeatedly said they will not take—or change the requirements to oppose the bill. There’s a lot of risk either way, though, and it’s unclear if Thune will be willing to take that step.

Continue reading Denison Forum – Why are the new voter ID laws so controversial? →

An Ash Wednesday reflection on what matters most in life

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, described by the New York Times as America’s “most influential Black figure in the years between the civil rights crusades of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the election of Barack Obama,” died yesterday morning at the age of eighty-four. He was hospitalized last November with a severe neurodegenerative condition; his family said he “died peacefully.”

Rev. Jackson was with Dr. King when he was assassinated in 1968, eventually formed the National Rainbow Coalition, and ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Both times, he secured millions of votes in the primaries and delivered speeches at the Democratic National Conventions that electrified those in attendance. In 2000, President Clinton bestowed on him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation’s highest civilian honor.

Another death making headlines this week was the passing of famed actor Robert Duvall at the age of ninety-five. He was especially known for his roles in The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, Apocalypse Now, and Tender Mercies (for which he won the Best Actor Oscar). He also starred in the TV miniseries Lonesome Dove; his costar Tommy Lee Jones said after his death, “Even though I have lost a friend, Bob’s work will be with us indefinitely.”

I appreciate his kind tribute, but let’s think about his words for a moment.

The eighty-six-year-old actor Ian McKellen recently told an interviewer, “I have accepted that I’m not immortal.” It is vital that you and I accept the same fact, for reasons that reveal what matters most in life.

When most people died of an infectious disease

Even if Jesse Jackson had been elected president of the United States, his earthly work would not have been immortal. As President George W. Bush noted in his Presidents’ Day tribute to Gen. George Washington, our first president’s humility in stepping down from office helped define that office. He also built a mansion at Mt. Vernon that I and millions of others have toured.

However, neither the nation he helped birth nor the mansion he constructed will stand forever.

Robert Duvall likewise acted in some of our most iconic films and will be seen in them long after his death, but his films will not live forever.

There was a time when we understood the fact of our mortality better than we do now. As Susan Wise Bauer reports in The Great Shadow: A History of How Sickness Shapes What We Do, Think, Believe, and Buy, we are only four or five generations removed from a world where most people, most of the time, died of an infectious disease.

As examples, she discusses plague, typhus, smallpox, typhoid, influenza, polio, tuberculosis, dysentery, scarlet fever, cholera, measles, and malaria. The fact that medical science has defeated most of them does not make us any less mortal, a lesson the COVID-19 pandemic should have taught us.

There was also a time when we understood the temporality of our world better than we do now. But as I noted yesterday, materialism has convinced many that this world is all there is. Rather than using this life to prepare for the next, we ignore the latter and focus myopically on the former.

How death is like anesthesia

Could this be one reason God allows the reality of physical death? He could take us deathlessly from this world to the next, as he did with Enoch and Elijah. But he chooses to allow our bodies to die, in part to remind us of our finitude in the face of infinity and our mortality on the precipice of immortality.

When we die, we obviously have no agency by which to determine what happens to us next. At death, we are like a patient under anesthesia. What happens to us depends not on us, but on those who have power over us we no longer possess.

This fact should lead us to trust God not just with our lives beyond life but with our lives in this life.

As C. S. Lewis noted in Mere Christianity, humans were designed to depend on God as the “petrol” on which our “car” runs. Accordingly, he wrote, “It is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.”

“Destinations of which the traveler is unaware”

How, then, are we to live most effectively for eternal purposes? I don’t know the answer for my own life, much less for yours.

The Jewish philosopher Martin Buber observed, “All journeys have destinations of which the traveler is unaware.” This is especially true with regard to God’s omniscient purposes for his people, plans our finite and fallen minds cannot fully comprehend (cf. Isaiah 55:8–9).

I would guess that Paul considered the individuals he won to Christ during his missionary journeys to be his most lasting legacy. His letters were “task theology” written to specific congregations and people for specific purposes. But it was these letters that became his global contribution to God’s eternal kingdom.

I would also guess that John thought his public ministry was over when he was exiled to Patmos. He had written a Gospel and three letters, so he presumably had no regrets. Accordingly, when he was worshiping Jesus “in the Spirit” on the Lord’s Day, he had no idea he would receive the Revelation that completed the New Testament (Revelation 1:10–20).

Our Father will lead us into our most impactful lives if we leave the choice with him. Every moment spent in his perfect will is obedience that echoes in eternity. If we choose to measure success in this world by significance for the next, and we ask Jesus to make our choice a reality, he will always answer our prayer.

“You became what you were not”

On this Ash Wednesday, as Christians around the world begin a season focused on Jesus’ suffering and death for us, we can join them in contemplating such sacrificial love. And we can respond by committing our lives to serving and glorifying such a Savior.

To this end, we can pray with Martin Luther:

“Lord Jesus, you are my righteousness, I am your sin. You took on you what was mine, yet set on me what was yours. You became what you were not, that I might become what I was not.”

How grateful are you for such grace today?

Quote for the day:

“A Christian knows that death shall be the funeral of all his sins, his sorrows, his afflictions, his temptations, his vexations, his oppressions, his persecutions. He knows that death shall be the resurrection of all his hopes, his joys, his delights, his comforts, his contentments.” —Thomas Brooks (1608–80)

Our latest website resources:

• Why are the new voter ID laws so controversial?
• George Washington and the future of the “United” States
• Can caffeine and video games protect against dementia?
• James Van Der Beek’s death and the path to true hope
• Notre Dame professor advocates for abortion: Responding to her argument with scientific facts and a grieving heart

Denison Forum

I am writing this article on “Presidents’ Day,” but I am doing so under protest. George Washington was born on February 22, 1732. In 1879, the United States made his birthday a federal holiday. In 1968, however, Congress passed the “Uniform Monday Holiday Act” that moved the celebration of Washington’s birthday to the third Monday of February.

Since Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, many states have combined the two into “Presidents’ Day,” which is the case in my home state of Texas. Fortunately, in my view, numerous states still recognize this day as “George Washington Day” or “Washington’s Birthday.” In the city of Laredo, Texas, the Washington Birthday Celebration lasts the entire month.

With all due respect to Mr. Lincoln and our other presidents, George Washington deserves to be recognized by our nation on a specific day. Were it not for him, there likely would not be a “United” States of America to do so.

The reasons speak not only to our past but especially to our future.

 “Separate them if it be better”

By any measure, George Washington occupies a unique place in our national story.

As commander in chief of the Continental Army, he led his troops to eventual victory over the unquestioned superpower of the day. This despite the fact that most of his soldiers were farmers and merchants with no formal military training; the British fielded much larger numbers of professional soldiers along with the world’s strongest navy.

After winning our independence, Gen. Washington presided over the Continental Congress that created our Constitution, then became our first president (the only person ever elected by unanimous vote of the Electoral College).

However, the nation he led was not sure it was a nation. The thirteen colonies were widely disparate in culture and economics, united primarily in their opposition to King George III and their quest for independence from his despotic rule.

Our Declaration of Independence was titled, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” (note the lower case “united” and upper case “States”). The resolution adopted the declaration, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.” Independence did not, in fact, create one nation, but thirteen.

During the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, the West threatened to secede from the East. At the end of Thomas Jefferson’s first term, New England threatened to secede over his economic and political stances. He responded: “Whether we remain in our confederacy, or break into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I do not believe very important to the happiness of either part.” He added, “Separate them if it be better.”

Blue cities within red states

We live in a day that seems as divided by partisan politics and cultural issues as ever. We are not just “blue” states and “red” states but blue cities and towns within red states and vice versa. A record-high 80 percent of US adults believe Americans are greatly divided on the most important values, while only 18 percent believe our country is united.

There was a day when Americans could find unity in their shared religiosity, but a smaller percentage of us now claim a church membership than ever before. Those with no religious preference outnumber any other single religious demographic.

Additionally, a recent poll reported that two-thirds of US adults believe this is the lowest point in our nation’s history that they can remember; 76 percent said the future of the nation is a significant source of stress in their lives.

Do these facts correlate with our declining religious commitment?

I believe George Washington would say so.

An annual tradition worth emulating 

Since 1896, it has been an annual tradition for a current member of the US Senate to read Gen. Washington’s Farewell Address in honor of his birthday. I believe this is something every American would profit from doing as well.

There was no constitutional requirement for President Washington to step down after two terms, and he faced significant pressure not to do so. To announce his decision not to seek a third term, he presented his Farewell Address in a newspaper article on September 17, 1796. In it, he stated:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.

His reasoning is compelling: a consensual democracy requires a consensual morality. The Dutch diplomat Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) noted more than a century earlier:

A man cannot govern a nation if he cannot govern a city; he cannot govern a city if he cannot govern a family; he cannot govern a family unless he can govern himself; and he cannot govern himself unless his passions are subject to reason.

However, can our “passions” be “subject to reason”? Our first president would say no. Continuing with his Farewell Address:

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be sustained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of particular structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Why was he right?

How Americans can “unite” today

After the Fall, the “will to power” has dominated human nature (cf. Genesis 3:5). We will therefore use the political process as a means to our ends. We will place our state ahead of the federal, our community ahead of the state, and ourselves ahead of all.

Consequently, America will remain a “united” nation only if we learn to subject our personal ambitions to the national good and serve a cause greater than ourselves. And we can consistently do this only when we experience the unconditional, selfless love of God and then share it with others: “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19; cf. Galatians 5:22).

In this light, is knowing Christ and making him known not the single greatest service we can render our nation? Is experiencing his love and then paying forward his grace not the most transforming gift we can give?

In 1789, George Washington issued America’s first “Thanksgiving Proclamation.” In it, he called on Americans to render their gratitude to God as “the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.”

He believed that our disparate nation would then “unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country.” And that we would “unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations” (my emphases).

Can the “United” States of America flourish unless we embrace our first president’s wisdom?

Can you?

Denison Forum

It’s a sign of our times when a movie is so sexually immoral that even reading reviews of it can veer toward the pornographic. But such is the case with Wuthering Heights, the film adaptation of the Emily Brontë novel that was released Friday to a very mixed reception.

One reviewer calls the film an “abomination.” Another calls it an “insult” to the novel’s characters and describes its sex scenes as “truly exhausting.” The New Yorker portrays some of these scenes in ways I will not reproduce here and hope you won’t read.

To switch “art” forms: the latest Sports Illustrated “Swimsuit Edition” is out. The magazine has been doing this since 1964, sometimes in nearly pornographic ways. This year’s edition does something new, however: it features six wives and girlfriends of prominent NFL players. Among them is Brittany Mahomes, whose husband is an iconic superstar widely considered one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time.

As with Wuthering Heights, I will neither link to the images nor view them myself. One reason is obvious: Jesus warned us that “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). We are therefore told to “flee from sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18), a command I intend to obey.

But the other reason is less obvious and constitutes the theme of my article today.

The three marks of a revolution

Last Thursday, I referred to the LGBTQ advocacy strategy I have been describing for years in books and articles: normalize unbiblical immorality, legalize it, stigmatize those who disagree, and criminalize such disagreement.

A reader responded by pointing me to a similar way of describing this strategy that I had not seen. In Reinventing Liberal Christianity, the British theologian Theo Hobson describes the three marks of a revolution:

1. What was universally condemned is now celebrated.
2. What was universally celebrated is now condemned.
3. Those who refuse to celebrate are condemned.

As a means to advancing such a “revolution,” the first step is to normalize “what was universally condemned.” We are reticent to celebrate what we consider aberrant, so we must be convinced that what we thought was aberrant is actually normal.

With regard to sexual immorality, the enemy does this in two ways.

From models to mothers

The first is modeled by the women modeling very revealing swimwear in Sports Illustrated. In the past, athletes, actresses, and professional models have typically been the subjects of the annual publication. This year, however, the magazine chose wives and girlfriends of athletes, some of whom are known for their public roles as wives and mothers.

One result is the supposition that if “normal” people engage in activities we would have considered immoral, it must be normal for us to do the same.

The second way immorality is normalized is illustrated by Wuthering Heights and its extremely aberrant sex scenes. Even reading the reviews, it is clear to me that these are activities “normal” people would not even consider.

My concern is not that those who see the movie are now more likely to do what the characters did. It is that they will think, “If people do things like this, my more ‘normal’ sins must not be as sinful as I thought.”

And when any activity becomes normalized in society, we can expect society to want it to be legalized. We saw this with marijuana legalization, which the New York Times strongly advocated but now admits has “caused a rise in addiction and other problems,” with widespread hospitalizations and chronic psychotic disorders.

Nonetheless, it is natural for us to want to legalize what we consider normal behavior, then to stigmatize those who disagree and even to criminalize such disagreement. As Hobson noted, in this third stage of a revolution, “Those who refuse to celebrate are condemned.”

Two practical responses

Given the extreme pervasiveness of sexualized images and behavior in contemporary culture, spanning the gamut from advertising to music to television to movies to Super Bowl halftime shows (again, I won’t link to examples), how are Christ followers to respond?

First, we should see all temptations as a step from what seems “normal” and innocuous into what will become disastrous and deadly. Jesus warned us that “everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). And “sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:15). Lust becomes adultery, which becomes the destruction of our family and the ruin of our public witness and ministry.

As I heard a pastor say and often quote: sin will always take you further than you wanted to go, keep you longer than you wanted to stay, and cost you more than you wanted to pay. If you think you’re exempt from this satanic strategy, you of all people are most susceptible to it.

Our second response is to turn to the only source of true victory: “Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16, my emphasis). Jesus taught us, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all” (John 6:63). Paul was blunt: “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8).

Clearly, we cannot rely on our sinful nature to defeat our sinful nature. How then do we “walk by the Spirit”?

• We begin the day by submitting our lives to him (Ephesians 5:18), reading God’s word so the Spirit can use it to shape our minds and guide our steps (Hebrews 4:12), and drawing close to Christ in worship so he can make us like himself (2 Corinthians 3:18).
• We “walk” through the day by practicing his presence: we pray about all we encounter (1 Thessalonians 5:17) and turn every temptation immediately to him for his strength and help (1 Corinthians 10:13; Romans 13:14).
• If we fall, we immediately seek his forgiveness and restoration (1 John 1:9).

When we “walk in the light, as he is in the light” (1 John 1:7), we experience our Father’s best in every dimension of our lives (cf. Galatians 6:7–8). As the biblical scholar Spiros Zodhiates noted,

“Peace of heart is the natural outcome of purity of heart.”

Will you experience such “peace” today?

Quote for the day:

“If your goal is purity of heart, be prepared to be thought very odd.” —Elisabeth Elliot

Our latest website resources:

• James Van Der Beek’s death and the path to true hope
• Notre Dame professor advocates for abortion: Responding to her argument with scientific facts and a grieving heart
• Is your church a part of the friendship recession? How biblical, covenantal friendships can help
• Super Bowl recap, AI shakes Wall Street, Trump’s Obama video, Epstein fallout & Winter Olympics
• Should churches use AI? What role does Artificial Intelligence play in the church, and what are the risks?

Denison Forum

How biblical, covenantal friendships can help

Friendships are on the decline, in quantity, but especially in quality. Due to the rise of social media and digital communication, modern relationships often lack depth, commitment, and longevity. The world seems to value individual preference, side hustles, pets, social media appearances, and hobbies over friendships.

These values can infiltrate the church, but so can prioritizing family and spouses at the expense of healthy, deep, covenantal friendships. First, let’s discuss the so-called “friendship recession,” then we can unpack how you and your church can combat it.

The friendship recession

This shift has occurred rapidly, although the phenomenon likely predates the technology. From 1975 to 2000, there was a 35 percent drop in having friends over and a 58 percent drop in club meeting attendance. This decline in America’s social fabric is only exacerbated by social media and casual friendships.

Unlike the friendships of previous generations, which often formed through shared life experiences, community engagement, and long-term interactions, friendships today tend to be more transactional and fleeting. The number of Americans with no close friends quadrupled from 4 percent to 12 percent over the period from 1990 to 2021. This decline has been called the “friendship recession.”

Broadly speaking, people who go to church regularly fare better in the friendship department. Church can be a wonderful place to make close relationships. Church involves a social gathering where folks have shared values—namely, the gospel—and engage in common activities like singing and discussing the Bible. Unfortunately, churches haven’t always capitalized on this fact.

Instead, the friendship recession has affected not only personal relationships but also how friendships are perceived within the church. Rather than being viewed as a crucial aspect of spiritual growth and Christian living, friendships have become secondary to romantic and familial relationships.

This modern neglect of deep, covenantal friendships has significant implications for the church.

When friendships are not prioritized or nurtured, churches can become fragmented, with individuals forming small, insular groups rather than functioning as a unified body. This lack of deep connection weakens communities, making it easier for people to leave their church for minor reasons or to seek fulfillment elsewhere.

If friendships were viewed through a covenantal lens—similar to the biblical examples of David and Jonathan, or even Jesus and His disciples—churches would foster a stronger sense of commitment, accountability, and support among their members.

Biblical examples of covenantal friendship

The Bible presents numerous examples of friendships that transcend cultural expectations and personal circumstances. Jonathan and David, for example, model the biblical picture of covenantal friendship. There are several moments when David and Jonathan show brotherly affection and make lifelong commitments to friendship, but this passage from 1 Samuel stands out:

Then Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lᴏʀᴅ, saying, ‘The Lᴏʀᴅ shall be between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring, forever.’” (1 Samuel 20:42)

This kind of commitment has the potential to transform both individual lives and church communities. Their friendship was marked by unwavering loyalty, self-sacrifice, and deep emotional connection, demonstrating the power of covenantal love. Jonathan risked his own safety and position for David’s well-being, showing that true friendship often requires personal sacrifice.

In addition to David and Jonathan’s friendship, Jesus Himself modeled deep relational bonds with His disciples. He did not merely serve as their teacher; He called them friends (John 15:15). His love for them was sacrificial and enduring, as seen in His commitment to walking with them in their weaknesses, encouraging them, and ultimately laying down His life for them.

Similarly, the early church exemplified communal friendship in Acts 2:42-47, where believers devoted themselves to fellowship, shared their resources, and supported one another in radical ways.

These examples remind us that friendships in the Christian faith are not meant to be optional or superficial but integral to spiritual growth and community flourishing.

Does every friendship need to be covenantal?

Does every friendship need to be covenantal? In short, absolutely not.

Friendship is not a single category. We use the same word to describe people we occasionally see, people we share activities with, and people who carry our inner lives—but not all friendships are meant to hold the same emotional weight.

The difference between them is not primarily time spent, proximity, or shared interests; it is emotional posture: how open, exposed, and responsible two people are willing to be with one another.

Covenant friendship is not a higher-value human being but a deeper shared agreement. It cannot exist unilaterally. Close and covenant friendships only form when both people—implicitly or explicitly—agree that the relationship carries the next level of responsibility.

When intimacy is assumed without mutual clarity, it becomes high-liability rather than life-giving. Covenant friendship, at its core, is not about intensity or constant access, but about mutual commitment to presence, repair, and care across seasons of change.

As Proverbs 18:24 says, “A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.” While it’s important for every believer to have one to a few covenantal friendships, there’s no need to stress about making everyone into that kind of friend! It’s a rare, treasured thing that should be protected, cultivated, and celebrated.

How can your church encourage covenantal friendships?

Often, friendships within the church remain segmented along lines of age, marital status, or shared interests, rather than functioning as a holistic, intergenerational community. When friendships are not intentionally cultivated, they can lead to feelings of isolation and disconnection, weakening the overall fabric of the church.

However, if churches were to intentionally cultivate and encourage friendships across different groups—between singles and married couples, across generations, and even across cultural backgrounds—there would be a greater sense of unity and mutual encouragement in the body of Christ.

A culture of covenantal friendship would encourage members to commit to one another in love, fostering an environment where spiritual growth, accountability, and encouragement thrive. This shift would strengthen the church and provide a countercultural witness to a world that often undervalues deep, committed relationships.

To cultivate these kinds of friendships, we need to take practical steps:

• First, churches should actively teach about the value of covenant friendships, incorporating it into sermons, Bible studies, and discipleship programs.
• Second, believers should commit to spending intentional time with one another, prioritizing friendship in their schedules rather than relegating it to occasional interactions.
• Third, accountability should be a natural part of these relationships, where friends encourage one another in faith, challenge each other to grow spiritually, and walk through trials together.
• Lastly, churches should create spaces where friendships can naturally develop, such as small groups, mentorship programs, and intergenerational gatherings.

Reclaiming the biblical vision of covenantal friendship is essential for both personal and communal flourishing. Friendship, when understood as a covenantal relationship rather than a casual association, has the power to transform the church into a more unified, supportive, and spiritually mature body. By looking to biblical examples and intentionally investing in deep, Christ-centered friendships, we can cultivate a church community that reflects the eternal, relational joy of the kingdom of God.

As marriage fades away in eternity, friendships will remain, demonstrating the enduring nature of covenantal love. In a culture that often isolates individuals and prioritizes independence over interdependence, the church has the unique opportunity to reclaim friendship as a foundational element of Christian life. By doing so, we offer a glimpse of heaven: a

community united in love, bound by faith, and strengthened through covenantal friendship.

To whom can you offer that glimpse of heaven today?

Denison Forum

The El Paso airport was shut down late Tuesday night after the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) fired an anti-drone laser at an object flying near the border. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered all flights grounded and closed the airspace up to eighteen thousand feet for a period of ten days in response. Or at least that was the plan until the FAA reversed course eight hours later and reopened everything.

It was a strange event, and a good bit of digital ink has been spilled in the time since attempting to get to the bottom of what caused the shutdown. As of now, here’s what we know:

• The Department of Defense (DOD) has been testing new anti-drone technology at Fort Bliss, which sits just outside of El Paso, TX.
• The DOD failed to inform the FAA that it would use this technology—a high-powered laser—creating a problem, as anti-drone weapons could potentially affect commercial aircraft that fly in and out of El Paso. Or, at least, that was the fear.
• After the laser was used to target what Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy described as a cartel drone incursion into American airspace—other reports say it was actually just a party balloon—the FAA shut down the airport for ten days.
• The ten-day shutdown appears quite excessive until you consider that the Pentagon and FAA officials were set to meet on February 20—one day before the shutdown was originally scheduled to end—to discuss the safety implications of testing those weapons so close to a commercial airport.
• The Pentagon had previously told the FAA about the lasers and how they planned to use them, but reports indicate the FAA did not receive enough information to be comfortable keeping the airspace open.

So, given those details, what are we to make of their decision, and are we likely to see further shutdowns in the future?

What’s the real problem?

The speed at which the FAA removed the restrictions, coupled with the specific timeframe of the initial closure, makes it sound as though the shutdown was more to get the DOD’s attention than because they truly feared for the safety of the aircraft flying in and out of El Paso. That the FAA neglected to tell either the White House or the Pentagon of its decision further points to safety being a secondary concern.

Continue reading Denison Forum – Why did the government shut down El Paso’s airport? →

Four biblical responses when Christians are stigmatized

Jennifer Welch was an Oklahoma City-based interior designer and reality show actress before launching a podcast in 2022. Titled “I’ve Had It,” her podcast now has 1.5 million subscribers on YouTube and 4.5 million followers across social media. She has interviewed former President Barack Obama, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), then-Vice President Kamala Harris, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, among many others.

Known for her profane rants against conservatives—she claims the 2024 assassination attempt on President Trump was “totally staged,” for example—she has now turned her ire on evangelicals.

Bonnie Kristian reports in the Free Press that Welch recently called us “the worst people in our country” and said in May, “I detest, with every molecule . . . in my being, evangelical Christianity. I think it is a dumb factory.”

Welch claims that “evangelical Christianity is the biggest racket on the planet” and repeatedly uses the epithet “cancer” to describe us. In her view, “Until we start dealing with this horrific cancer that is white evangelical Christianity in this country, we’re going to continue to have these problems.”

Kristian notes that “scorn heaped on evangelicals is not new.” She cites Yale University legal scholar Stephen L. Carter, who wrote in 1994 that secular progressives saw evangelicals as “wide-eyed zealots.”

Political scientist Ryan Burge explains: “People on the left side of the political spectrum need an enemy. They need to personify what the other side is, and because white evangelicals are so prominent in America, they have become the totem for all the liberal ire against conservatives in America.”

As corrosive to the common good as Welch’s rhetoric is, it is also a signal of something even more systemic, a trend we must recognize clearly so we can respond redemptively.

The four-part strategy continues

My wife and I watched a television show this week in which one of the female characters develops a romantic relationship with another woman. The other characters respond with delight that their colleague has finally “found someone” and hope their relationship lasts.

I was reminded again of the LGBTQ strategy that has been developed and followed over recent decades: normalize unbiblical immorality, legalize it, stigmatize those who disagree, and criminalize such disagreement.

However, the apparent chronological staging of this strategy is deceptive. Those who follow it will continue their efforts to normalize such immorality until they convince us that it is not immoral. Many will continue their work to legalize their immorality, as with current efforts to protect and legalize pedophilia. And they will continue stigmatizing those who disagree until there is no one left to disagree, all the while criminalizing such opposition in the service of the first three stages.

Jennifer Welch’s profane diatribes against evangelicals are obviously in the service of the stigmatizing stage. If Dr. Burge is right (and I think he is), we should not assume that there will not be others, or that criminalization of evangelicals who defend biblical morality is not in our future.

Numerous efforts have already been mounted to threaten our religious liberty, as the so-called Equality Act that passed the House twice demonstrates. Christianity Today reports that “across Western Europe, Christians report ‘discrimination and bullying’ and in some instances even ‘loss of employment’ for expressing faith-based opinions in their workplaces.” Some have even faced repercussions for views they expressed in private conversations or posted on private social media accounts.

Of course, such persecution does not begin to rise to the opposition believers face in North Korea, China, Cuba, and parts of the Muslim world. But when evangelicals are so blatantly stigmatized on one of the most popular podcasts in America, we should take note of where things are and where they may be going.

An “anonymous Christian” is a contradiction in terms

At this point, you might be discouraged by what you’ve read. My purpose, however, is just the opposite.

Jesus assured his followers, “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matthew 5:11, my emphasis). Our Lord warned us that we would be persecuted just as he was persecuted, which makes sense: those who saw him as a threat would see his followers as a threat. If they opposed him for proclaiming truth, they would oppose his followers for doing the same (cf. Acts 5:17–40).

A simple way out of this, of course, is to be silent about our faith as we hide our beliefs from those who would oppose them. However, an “anonymous Christian” is a contradiction in terms. If a “Christian” is a “Christ imitator” (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 John 2:6), we cannot imitate our Lord and be anything but vocal and courageous in speaking his word and advancing his kingdom (cf. Acts 4:19–20).

As a result, the more we are stigmatized for our faith, the more we can know that we are being appropriately public with our biblical beliefs. And the more we can know that Satan himself is using those willing to be used as he fights truth with lies.

Four practical responses

In this sense, it is an odd compliment when someone like Jennifer Welch castigates us so profanely and hatefully. Our response should be to expect such attacks, then to redeem them for God’s glory.

Here’s how the Bible teaches us to respond to those who oppose our faith:

1. “Forgive others their trespasses” (Matthew 6:14), choosing to pardon rather than to punish in the knowledge that we have been forgiven much as well (cf. Luke 7:47).
2. “Pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44), recognizing that the more they reject biblical truth, the more they need it.
3. “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27), seeking tangible ways to meet their needs so as to earn the right to share Christ with them.
4. “Be strong and courageous” (Joshua 1:9), asking God to help us “continue to speak your word with all boldness” (Acts 4:29).

In all things, we must remember that we are not “culture warriors” for whom people like Jennifer Welch are our enemies, but cultural missionaries for whom they are our mission field. The good news, as my wife writes in her latest blog, is that God’s Spirit can fill us with the same agape love that God’s Son has for us.

Then, as Janet notes, “we can love like Jesus.”

Whom do you know who needs such love today?

Quote for the day:

“The good man has his enemies. He would not be like his Lord if he had not. If we were without enemies, we might fear that we were not the friends of God, for friendship of the world is enmity to God.” —Charles Spurgeon

Our latest website resources:

• Notre Dame professor advocates for abortion: Responding to her argument with scientific facts and a grieving heart
• Transgender care is changing, how should Christians respond?
• How should Christians think about economics, capitalism, and government policy?
• Should churches user AI?
• How to help kids process disturbing news in a digital age

Denison Forum

A man was released from custody early this morning after being detained for questioning in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. He said he had been in his car last night when police officers asked him for his name and then detained him. He was held for several hours, he said, before he was released with wrists swollen from handcuffs.

The news came after the FBI released video Tuesday showing a masked person with a handgun holster outside Ms. Guthrie’s front door the night she disappeared.

In other Tuesday headlines, seven people were found dead in a shooting at a high school in Tumbler Ridge, a remote community in British Columbia. Among them was a person believed to be the shooter, who died from an apparent self-inflicted injury.

Another person died while being transported to the hospital from the school; twenty-five people suffered injuries that were not life-threatening. Two other people were found dead in a local residence that police believe is connected to the shooting.

Jefferson, Lincoln, and the “will to power”

Since the Fall, vice has been a feature rather than a bug of human nature. From Cain to today, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The two phrases and experiences are connected and causal: “The wicked boasts of the desires of his soul, and the one greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lᴏʀᴅ. In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 10:3–4).

In reading Joseph J. Ellis’s American Dialogue: The Founders and Us, I found two examples that make the psalmist’s point.

The first concerns Thomas Jefferson, without question one of the most brilliant of our presidents. Yet according to Ellis, Jefferson “regarded it as self-evident that ‘blacks are inferior to whites in the endowments of both mind and body.’” As a result, he could not see an end to slavery: he was convinced that any mixing of blacks and whites would produce an inferior American race, so freed slaves would have to be deported from the US, but Jefferson could not identify a plausible way to do so.

The second concerns Abraham Lincoln, usually ranked by historians as the greatest of our presidents. Yet Ellis reports that he also considered a deportation scheme for freed slaves to be enacted after the Civil War, even dispatching a presidential commission to Panama to explore the viability of a black homeland there.

Both presidents illustrate the perennial fact that the “will to power” inflames and empowers fallen human nature (cf. Genesis 3:5). But Jefferson was right to write: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Is there a way forward?

Ben Sasse on the source of meaning

In a perceptive new Wall Street Journal article, former Sen. Ben Sasse reminds us: “America works only if we remember that government is the source neither of our rights nor the meaning in our lives.” Given that Mr. Sasse is dying of pancreatic cancer, his wisdom resonates with particular urgency.

He is right: If our hope lies within us, we have no real hope. But if we will use the discouragements of the news and our culture to turn from ourselves to our redeeming Lord, he will do in us what we cannot do in ourselves.

While “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9), our Maker will give us a spiritual heart transplant: “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you” (Ezekiel 36:26). When we trust Christ as our Lord, we “become children of God” (John 1:12) and a “new creation” as “the old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

However, if you’re like Paul (and me), you still struggle with temptation: “I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (Romans 7:19).

The good news is that there is no sin we must commit (1 Corinthians 10:13). And there is a practical way we can experience “victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” every day (1 Corinthians 15:57).

“We need to reprogram our mind and heart”

In a recent Wisdom for Each Day devotional, Billy Graham likened our minds to computers that are programmed at the factory. Unfortunately, much of what programs us comes from our fallen culture and corrupts us. Dr. Graham therefore advised that “we need to reprogram our mind and heart; we need to replace the bad things that have taken root there with good and true things.”

The key is the word “replace.”

Years ago, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote an important article titled “How People Change.” He cited a “trove of research suggesting that it’s best to tackle negative behaviors obliquely, by redirecting attention toward different, positive ones.”

Erasmus (c. 1469–1536) had similar advice, encouraging us to use temptation as an opportunity to trust more fully in God’s power to defeat it. He noted that Satan hates nothing so much as for evil to be used for good.

In practical terms:

• When we see something in the news that discourages us, pray for those involved. Ask Jesus to make himself real to them. Pray for God to use his people to make a difference where they have influence. Ask the Spirit to replace our fear with the “peace of God, which surpasses all understanding,” knowing that it “will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7).

• When we face temptation, pray for the strength and wisdom to replace sin with godliness. Identify a positive action that would benefit us and others. Then ask Jesus to make himself real to us as he empowers us to be “more than conquerors through him who loved us” (Romans 8:37).

The key is both simple and profound:

“Beholding the glory of the Lord, [we] are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Corinthians 3:18).

How fully will you be “transformed” into your Father’s image today?

Quote for the day:

“Be killing sin, or it will be killing you.” —John Owen (1616–83)

Our latest website resources:

• Transgender care is changing, how should Christians respond?
• How to help kids process disturbing news in a digital age
• Bad Bunny, the Grammys, Super Bowl outrage, Don Lemon arrest & Epstein update
• White House video depicts the Obamas as primates: A biblical and personal response
• Who is Jelly Roll? The rapper-turned-country artist shares his faith at the Grammys

Denison Forum

The American alpine ski racer Lindsey Vonn has been one of the most compelling stories at the Winter Olympics. A gold medalist at the 2010 Games, she retired in 2019 after a variety of injuries and underwent a partial knee replacement in 2024. After the surgery, she felt so healthy that she decided to return to her sport and prepared at the age of forty-one to compete in the current Games.

A week before competition began, she tore her left ACL during training. She persisted with her dream despite the pain. But she crashed in the downhill final Sunday and fractured her left tibia, an injury that will require multiple surgeries to repair.

“Have the courage to dare greatly”

Lindsey shared a lengthy Instagram post on Monday, in which she wrote:

While yesterday did not end the way I had hoped, and despite the intense physical pain it caused, I have no regrets. Standing in the starting gate yesterday was an incredible feeling that I will never forget. Knowing I stood there having a chance to win was a victory in and of itself. . . .

And similar to ski racing, we take risks in life. We dream. We love. We jump. And sometimes we fall. Sometimes our hearts are broken. Sometimes we don’t achieve the dreams we know we could have. But that is also the beauty of life; we can try.

I tried. I dreamt. I jumped.

I hope if you take away anything from my journey, it’s that you all have the courage to dare greatly. Life is too short not to take chances on yourself. Because the only failure in life is not trying.

I marvel at the discipline and sacrifice that someone like Lindsey Vonn displays. And I feel inspired by her decision to use her platform at this very painful time to encourage the rest of us to follow her example, to “take risks in life” and to “take chances” on ourselves. She deserves our admiration for her courage in competing on behalf of our country.

However, I need to think with you about her last sentence I quoted. Her sentiment is by no means unique with Lindsey. In fact, it expresses powerfully what could be called the defining ethos of our day.

And this fact defines the greatest challenge of our day.

What our “greatest fear” should be

The author and pastor Francis Chan warned: “Our greatest fear should not be of failure but of succeeding at things in life that don’t really matter.” This is another way of restating the old parable about the man who climbed the ladder of life only to discover that it was leaning against the wrong wall.

Of course, our postmodern, post-Christian, highly secularized culture has abandoned any notion that there is such a thing as a “wrong” wall. There’s no right or wrong, we’re assured, just what’s right or wrong for you, so do what makes you happy.

In this context, Lindsey’s admonition makes perfect sense: “The only failure in life is not trying.”

But the only failure in life, in a biblical context, is not trying to do God’s will in God’s power for God’s glory.

Why is this?

“A sense of being really at home in earth”

In C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters, a chief tempter named Screwtape advises his demonic apprentice that humanity’s quest for prosperity “knits a man to the World. He feels that he is ‘finding his place in it,’ while really it is finding its place in him.”

Screwtape elaborates:

His increasing reputation, his widening circle of acquaintances, his sense of importance, the growing pressure of absorbing and agreeable work, build up in him a sense of being really at home in earth, which is just what we want.

If we do choose faith in the Lord, Lewis adds that Satan wants us to do so “not because it is true, but for some other reason.” Our enemy would rather we manipulate our faith for nefarious ends such as clergy abuse scandals. But he will accept our using faith for good reasons, so long as they are not the best reason, which is intimacy with the Almighty himself.

Anything less than such intimacy cuts us off from the source of life, which is the living Lord Jesus. He alone is the “cornerstone” of our faith (Ephesians 2:20). It is only when we “abide” in Jesus that we can bear “much fruit” (John 15:5).

Nothing we do in our fallen and finite capacities, even for our Lord, can replace what the God who made the universe can do in and through us.

Words I need to pray every morning

This is why Paul prayed that God would grant the Ephesian Christians “to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being” that they might “have the strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:16, 18–19).

The apostle could offer his prayer in confidence, knowing that God “is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us” (v. 20, my emphasis). His prayer is recorded in Scripture so it can be ours today.

I have often warned over the years that self-sufficiency is spiritual suicide. I didn’t read that in a book—I learned it personally. Depending on ourselves keeps the Spirit from doing what he can do only in lives fully yielded to him. This is why Satan loves to tempt us with the self-reliance that is so pervasive in our existentialist culture.

And it is why Jesus is knocking at the door of our hearts right now, seeking true intimacy with us (Revelation 3:20). As David said to our Lord, “Your beauty and love chase after me every day of my life” (Psalm 23:6, MSG).

The bad news is that I need to pray these words from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer at the start of every day:

To my humble supplication
Lord, give ear and acceptation.
Save thy servant, that hath none
Help nor hope but thee alone. Amen.

The good news is that I can.

So can you.

Quote for the day:

“We are all servants. The only question is whom we will serve.” —R. C. Sproul

Our latest website resources:

• Bad Bunny, the Grammys, Super Bowl outrage, Don Lemon arrest & Epstein update
• White House video depicts the Obamas as primates: A biblical and personal response
• How much do you know about the Super Bowl? The history of football and the practical purpose of Scripture
• Who is Jelly Roll? The rapper-turned-country artist shares his faith at the Grammys
• What does faith have to say about today’s sports culture?

Denison Forum

The popularity of football and “the most infallible sign of the presence of God”

NOTE: A video depicting the Obamas as primates dominated headlines over the weekend. For a biblical and personal response, please see my latest website article.

The Seattle Seahawks won yesterday’s Super Bowl LX over the New England Patriots with a dominant defensive performance. If you’re like the vast majority of us, you don’t live in either team’s media market and thus likely don’t have a personal interest in what I just wrote. But if you’re like more than two hundred million other Americans, you watched the game (or at least part of it) anyway, as did people in over 180 countries in nearly 25 languages.

Perhaps it was the party you attended for which the game was more or less an excuse to go. Perhaps it was gathering with family and friends for this now-annual tradition. Perhaps it was the commercials that interested you more than the game. Those who made them certainly hope you watched, since they spent $8 million on a single thirty-second ad.

Nonetheless, you probably knew the result of the Super Bowl before you read it in my article this morning. I would not necessarily expect the same if I were writing about the World Series, the Kentucky Derby, the Masters, or any other headline sports event. But NFL football and its championship game hold an unrivaled place in our culture.

As I am reflecting on this fact today, I am also wondering why it is so.

And I am wondering if the explanation matters for the rest of the year.

It turns out, the answer to my first question answers the second as well.

“Sentiment, emotion, passion, and allegiance”

Reasons for the popularity of professional football are well known and unsurprising: among other factors, watching the game fosters relationships, tailgating is fun, league parity keeps things interesting, the game is fast-paced, and fantasy football has real stakes.

A game with roots in antiquity, as I noted in my recent website article on the history of the Super Bowl, has become one of the most dominant parts of contemporary culture. Nothing rivals it for viewership, ad revenue, or any other audience metric.

But I think there is another factor at work here, one that is less obvious but even more significant.

The British political philosopher Edmund Burke (1729–1797) is widely considered to be the founder of conservatism. A biographer summarizes his worldview this way:

Human passions are guided by empathy and imagination. Human well-being is grounded in a social order whose values are given by divine providence. Human reason is limited in scope, and insufficient as a basis for public morality. . . .

People cannot reason themselves into a good society, for a good society is rooted not merely in reason but in the sentiments and the emotions.

Burke asserted that “politics ought to be adjusted, not to human reasonings, but to human nature; of which the reason is but a part, and by no means the greatest part.” His biographer therefore notes:

Human reason is a wonderful thing, but Burke insists we are above all creatures of sentiment, emotion, passion, and allegiance, for good or ill. What matters and should matter to us is not abstract liberties, but the liberty to live our lives well alongside others and in our communities.

Burkean philosophy and football

What does Burkean political philosophy have to do with the popularity of the Super Bowl?

“Sentiment, emotion, [and] passion” aptly describe a typical fan’s experience. We feel the highs and lows of the game. We cringe at the physical collisions and marvel at the athletic exploits. None of this is a rational choice or the product of a rational process.

In addition, almost nothing regarding our “allegiance” to our preferred team is the product of reason. I cannot imagine that many fans examine a team’s roster in detail, explore its finances, scrutinize its leadership structure, and then make a rational decision to support it. Our allegiance is the product of where we live and/or other emotional factors that tie us to our team “for good or ill.”

All of this points to the transformational heart of biblical Christianity, a fact that explains its explosive early growth and that compels us to embrace it for ourselves.

“The life was made manifest”

Six decades after he left his father’s fishing boat to follow Jesus (Matthew 4:21–22), John was still not over the experience. He described his relationship with his Lord in these intimate terms:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us (1 John 1:1–2).

After teaching world religions with four seminaries and writing numerous books and articles in the area, I can report that no other religion offers such a personal engagement with the deity it worships. But the living Lord Jesus, God “made manifest to us,” could be “looked upon” and “touched with our hands.” His followers heard his omniscient wisdom, experienced his omnipotent power, and felt his omnibenevolent grace.

Then, when they were “filled with the Holy Spirit” at Pentecost, they were so transformed and empowered that they had to tell “the mighty works of God” and Peter had to preach the glorious gospel of redemption in Christ (Acts 2:4, 11, 14). The movement that resulted worked out its worldview with reasoned brilliance, to be sure, as any reading of the book of Romans will show.

But it was birthed in an intimate engagement with the personal, living Lord Jesus, and never lost its fervor for him.

“The most infallible sign of the presence of God”

The Christians who have made the greatest impact on my life were the believers who were the most passionate about their Lord. Their joy in Jesus was contagious and appealing. Their commitment to Christ, often in the face of great challenges and suffering, made me want what they had.

How can we experience Jesus in such a passionate way?

David said to God, “In your presence there is fullness of joy” (Psalm 16:11; note the present tense). If we make time today to meet with the living Lord Jesus, to kneel before him in adoration, hear his voice, feel his touch, and give him our lives in profound gratitude for his astounding grace, how can we be the same?

The brilliant philosopher and scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin claimed, “Joy is the most infallible sign of the presence of God.” Julian of Norwich was therefore right to say,

“The fullness of joy is to behold God in everything.”

Will you experience such joy today?

Quote for the day:

“No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.” —C. S. Lewis

Our latest website resources:

• Bad Bunny, the Grammys, Super Bowl outrage, Don Lemon arrest & Epstein update
• Who is Jelly Roll? The rapper-turned-country artist shares his faith at the Grammys
• What does faith have to say about today’s sports culture?
• What does the future look like for Israel, Hamas, and Gaza?
• Should I have watched the Grammys? A reflection on cultural engagement and spiritual purity

Denison Forum