Faith is the substance of things hoped for. It is not a blind leap of hope into darkness, but a very tangible realism. That’s one of the reasons why it is so vital for a believer to read the Bible, be conversant with its claims, for the more one does the more the evidence that Russell cried out for will inhabit your soul and give it peace and comfort. Many times in life we allow doubt to flourish because we don’t take the time to nourish faith with truth, truth about God, truth about forgiveness of sin, and many other aspects of our Christian religion.

There’s been a theme developing the last week or so in our evening service on the Lord’s Day and in adult Sabbath School, that wasn’t intentional on my part. However, that’s how God in His providence works all the time. Sweetly complying things with one another in order to show forth His glory. We’ve been looking at Romans in the morning and our topical series on Sunday nights has explored the question “How God Works”. If you know anything about either of those then it makes sense why they make a good pair. One of Paul’s main concerns is how is it that our perfect and holy God was reconciled with fallen, sinful humanity if He is the all-powerful mighty one? As we have seen as we’ve spent time considering Jehovah’s attributes it is because He is the God of mercy and grace that this is the case. In today’s prayer and worship help we will speak a little bit on the topic of the practicality presented to a believer by the great truths offered in a better understanding of the nature of our Heavenly Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. We’ll see how the Trinity especially is of great help to Christians everywhere, at all times.
In the passage we looked at this most recent Sabbath morning, Romans 9, we have these famous words. “…for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.” In that discussion of Jacob and Esau the apostle makes clear that the establishment of Jacob as the son of promise, and not Esau, was grounded in nothing about them as individuals. But that’s too narrow in a sense. We need to understand something concerning the reality that election is neither about Jacob nor Esau. The former was the beneficiary of the sovereign love of God in a way the later was not for sure, but what should that then result in for those of us on Team Jacob rather than Team Esau?
Considering the truth that Jehovah through His great benevolence towards men as sinners has sent His Son to lay down His life for the ungodly, and how the Father and the Son send the Spirit to make effectual that which was decreed by the Triune God it should drive us not merely towards obedience, but something higher than that, pure worship and praise.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Negative World might necessitate a change in one’s approach, but it ought not to change one’s conviction. In navigating the shifting tides of cultural dynamics, Deevers’s steadfast commitment to unwavering principles serves as a beacon of resilience.

You’re probably familiar with the controversial placement of a symbolic display by the Satanic Temple of Iowa in the Iowa State Capital in November 2023. The display showcases a mannequin resembling the pagan deity Baphomet, adorned with a ram’s head covered in reflective surfaces. Jon Harris recently wrote about the affair in these pages.
Apparently, Iowa allows any faith group to place images or icons in the state house for a term of two weeks. That said, the Satanist Temple self-professedly intended provocation with its statue. The move ignited widespread controversy culminating in the destruction of the display by one Michael Cassidy. What was noteworthy, and garnered much attention, about the chain of events was not the statue or its demise, but the response from pastor and Iowa Representative Jon Dunwell. His commentary was, in a sense, more controversial than the underlying facts.
Dunwell contended that if Satanists are prevented from installing statues of demons in the halls of Congress, then Christians will also have the same limitations in expressing their devotion to God in the public square. The distinctive aspect of Dunwell’s message lies in the overwhelmingly negative reaction it garnered from Conservative Christians. His critics contended that he had compromised the cherished values that many of his constituents hold dear and had betrayed the moral fabric of the community. Equally noteworthy was Dunwell’s apparently genuine surprise at the backlash he received from conservative Christians. To him, it seemed he was merely upholding the pluralistic status quo of “religious liberty.” As the old saying goes, “I may disagree with your Satanic displays, but I’ll fight for your right to display them.”
Perhaps unbeknownst to him, Dunwell’s surprise is rooted in what Aaron Renn terms the Negative World, a new realm we have all entered whether we like it or not.
Providentially, as the events with the Satanic display transpired, Dusty Deevers won a state senate election in Oklahoma, and by a significant margin. Much like Dunwell, now Senator Deevers wears multiple hats serving as both a pastor and a businessman, father and husband. It may not seem unusual or remarkable that a conservative like Deevers won an election in a red state, but, the odds were against him.
Deevers had no prior experience in politics unlike his main primary opponent, J.J. Francais. Francais is the mayor of Elgin, Deevers’s own town of residence. He also enjoyed financial backing and endorsements from the Governor of Oklahoma and the state superintendent. Despite this, Deevers beat Francais 2-to-1 in the very town Francais is the mayor. Jean Hausheer, Deevers’s other primary opponent, had strong financial backing and was even financially endorsed by Bart Barter, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), Deevers’s own denomination in which he is ordained.
It would be quotes from Bart Barber that Deevers’s general election opponent, Larry Bush, would use against him in mailers across his district. To make things even harder for the Deevers campaign, two attack advertisements against him were played during the Texas vs Oklahoma college football game, as well as the Cowboys game the following day. Millions of people saw these ads. Your average politico would project a poor performance from Deevers.
Despite facing considerable challenges and opposition, Deevers emerged victorious, and Oklahomans emerged better for it. This success can be attributed not to mere popularity, winsomeness, or concessions, but rather to his unwavering commitment to his convictions, a genuine affection for his community, and a deliberate rejection of the “third-way” approach. Deevers’s campaign went beyond mere criticism of the abortion industry. He also scrutinized the Pro-Life sector, accusing it of compromising its principles. He was a vocal critic of the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) industry and same-sex marriage. Deevers even advocated for the abolition of pornography.
One of his more controversial positions was his call to repeal no-fault divorce. He endorsed the idea of shaming those responsible for unjustified family breakdowns. In other words, Deevers ran a campaign that emphasized and prioritized the traditional family top to bottom. “Good families build good governments,” said Deevers. He emphasized the importance of protecting traditional family structures as the foundation for society’s well-being. “We must protect traditional marriage…I will fight to make sure Oklahoma laws never interfere with the spiritual and economic thriving of families.”
Deevers’s emphasis on uncompromising family values was just one facet of his campaign. He firmly supports the Second Amendment, advocates for lower taxes, and champions an overall business-friendly economy. However, above all, he made it unequivocally clear that his role as State Senator would be rooted in the acknowledgment that Christ is King. In Deevers’s words,
“I am a Christian first and foremost and a conservative through and through. Jesus is my King, and the Word of God is my guide. I make no bones about it. My faith in and love of Christ, which I preach every other Sunday at my church, animates my life and would be the foundation of everything I do as Oklahoma State Senator.” He then gets specific about what this means in practice: “It is an outrage that the government attempted to force closure of churches and businesses…that drag queens are permitted to dance for children at pride parades and story hours…that our public schools have exposed children to LGBTQ+ propaganda…that abortion pills still flow through legally in our state…that pornography and no-fault divorce are prevalent in our society…and that Critical Race Theory and Queer Theory dominate our public institutions. I promise to support legislation to put a stop to all of this.”
Deevers’s commitment to faith-based values and straightforward communication style struck a chord with conservative and Christian voters. Deevers’s opponents saw these policy issues as weaknesses, ones that they attempted to exploit by circulating thousands of flyers advertising his views, as if he was embarrassed by them and that they were per se ridiculous. But like Dunwell, Deevers’s opponents too have appeared to enter the Negative World without realizing it.
To reiterate the argument presented by Renn, the trajectory of secularization in the American narrative unfolds in three distinct stages: The Positive World (Pre-1994) characterized by a predominantly favorable societal view of Christianity; The Neutral World (1994-2014) where society adopts a neutral stance towards Christianity; and The Negative World (2014-present) where a pervasive negative perception of Christianity, particularly at the institutional level, has taken hold. The rejection of Christian morality is viewed as a potential hazard to both the public welfare and the emerging secular framework. As Renn points out, embracing Christian moral perspectives results in adverse repercussions. This transition is marked by a notable shift in public sentiment, with an increasing number of individuals and institutions expressing skepticism or disapproval of Christian moral values.  In light of this transformation, conventional methods of persuasion used by Conservative politicians and church leaders in the past are becoming obsolete in the Negative World, and this shift is evident in the changing political landscape.
Societal institutions are increasingly hostile to Christianity, that’s a given. But something more is going on. Conservative Christians are finding themselves less satisfied with the middle-of-the-road approach that prioritizes winsomeness and mainstream respectability in evangelical leaders and conservative politicians. A growing discontent is evident as individuals within these groups express frustration with compromises made in an attempt to appeal to a broad audience. This approach usually involves softening the Gospel’s exclusivity, and Biblical morality generally, through an emphasis on post-war, proceduralist dogma ostensibly designed for civility and stability. This Dunwell embodies.
Read More
Related Posts:

In Mark 1, Jesus spoke and acted with divine power and authority. He could receive the diseased to himself and could send them away well. If he can overcome a man’s skin-diseased condition, what else can he do, and what greater works can he accomplish? For example, what can he do about the problem of sin and death?

A skin-diseased man approached Jesus in Mark 1:40, and approaching someone while being unclean was something you were not supposed to do. The law of God said so. In Leviticus 13, if a priest confirmed you had a skin disease, you were to dwell outside the camp until it was resolved. If you were close to crossing paths with someone, you were supposed to dishevel your hair and clothes and shout “Unclean!” so that people had fair warning.
But the skin-diseased man in Mark 1 approached Jesus anyway. He fell down before him and said, “If you will, you can make me clean” (1:40). Now that statement is especially intriguing because no unclean person would fall before an Old Testament priest and ask for cleansing. Priests could diagnose, but they could not heal. What was this man doing?
The man had heard about what Jesus could do. In Mark 1:32, Jesus healed the sick at Capernaum (1:32–34). Word continued to spread, and more people came searching for Jesus the next day (1:36–37). Later, Jesus went throughout all Galilee preaching and casting out demons (1:39). What a report! Jesus had authority over diseases and demons! The reason the skin-diseased man came to Jesus is because he knew what Jesus could do.
“If you will, you can make me clean,” he told Jesus (Mark 1:40). The clean/unclean categories were Old Testament ceremonial evaluations about whether someone was ritually fit to approach the tabernacle (“clean”) or whether someone was ritually unfit to approach the tabernacle (“unclean”). Uncleanness also impacted family and social relationships, because perpetual uncleanness required dwelling outside the camp of Israel. The man’s request to Jesus was bold and faith-filled.
Read More
Related Posts: