MY TAKE

Author: SGTenizo

  • Is Christian Involvement in Politics Biblical?

    Is Christian Involvement in Politics Biblical?

    The question of Christian involvement in politics has been debated throughout church history. Scripture does not present a single, simple command such as “Christians must engage in politics” or “Christians must avoid politics.” Instead, it offers principles about government, citizenship, moral witness, and the mission of the church.

    Below is a biblical exploration of arguments supporting involvement, arguments urging caution, and the proper role of the church.

    1. Biblical Passages That Support Christian Involvement in Public Life

    These texts suggest believers should influence society, justice, and leadership.

    A. Christians Are Called to Seek the Good of Society

    Jeremiah 29:7

    “Seek the peace and prosperity of the city… Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”

    Although written to Jewish exiles in Babylon, the principle applies broadly:
    God’s people should work for the welfare of the society where they live.

    Political engagement—voting, advocating justice, ethical leadership—can be one way to do this.

    B. Government Is Ordained by God

    Romans 13:1–4

    “There is no authority except that which God has established… For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good.”

    This passage teaches that:

    • Government is part of God’s order for society
    • It restrains evil
    • It promotes justice

    If government matters to God, believers may legitimately participate in shaping it.

    C. Christians Are Salt and Light in Society

    Matthew 5:13–16

    “You are the salt of the earth… You are the light of the world.”

    Salt preserves and light exposes darkness.
    Many Christians interpret this as a call to influence moral direction in society, including politics.

    D. Biblical Figures Served in Government

    Several faithful believers held political roles:

    PersonRole
    JosephPrime Minister of Egypt (Genesis 41)
    DanielGovernment administrator in Babylon (Daniel 6)
    EstherQueen who influenced imperial policy
    NehemiahRoyal official rebuilding Jerusalem

    Their participation shows political involvement can be consistent with faithfulness to God.

    2. Biblical Passages That Warn Against Political Entanglement

    Scripture also gives strong cautions.

    A. Christ’s Kingdom Is Not Political

    John 18:36

    “My kingdom is not of this world.”

    Jesus rejected the idea of a political revolution against Rome.
    His mission focused on spiritual transformation rather than political power.

    B. Believers Are Citizens of Heaven

    Philippians 3:20

    “Our citizenship is in heaven.”

    This reminds Christians that earthly politics is temporary and secondary to God’s kingdom.

    C. The Danger of Trusting Political Power

    Psalm 146:3

    “Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.”

    Scripture warns against idolizing political leaders or movements.

    D. The Church Must Avoid Partisan Division

    2 Timothy 2:4

    “No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs.”

    Some interpret this to mean the church must not become entangled in political conflicts that distract from its spiritual mission.

    3. Jesus and Politics

    Jesus’ famous statement reveals a balanced perspective.

    Matthew 22:21

    “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

    This suggests:

    Two spheres exist:

    SphereResponsibility
    Civil governmentTaxes, civic duties
    GodWorship, ultimate loyalty

    Christians may fulfill civic duties without making politics ultimate.

    4. The Role of the Church vs. the Role of Individual Christians

    A key distinction in theology:

    Individual Christians

    Believers may:

    • Vote
    • Serve in government
    • Advocate justice
    • Promote righteous policies

    They do so as citizens guided by biblical conscience.

    The Institutional Church

    The church has a different primary mission.

    Matthew 28:19–20

    “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

    The church’s core mission is:

    • Preach the gospel
    • Make disciples
    • Teach God’s Word
    • Care for the needy
    • Form moral character

    Historically many theologians warn that when the church becomes a political machine, it loses its spiritual power.

    5. Biblical Principles for Choosing Leaders

    While Scripture does not command voting, it gives criteria for leadership.

    Character Matters

    Exodus 18:21

    “Select capable men… who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain.”

    Wisdom and Justice

    Proverbs 29:2

    “When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.”

    Justice for the Vulnerable

    Proverbs 31:8–9

    “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.”

    Christians evaluating leaders may consider these qualities.

    6. The Historical Christian Debate

    Three broad views exist among Christians.

    1. Political Engagement

    Christians should actively influence government.

    Example traditions:

    • Reformers
    • Evangelicals
    • Many Catholic teachings on social justice

    2. Limited Engagement

    Christians participate but keep the church institution non-partisan.

    Example traditions:

    • Many Protestant churches
    • Mainstream evangelicals historically

    3. Political Separation

    Christians avoid politics to remain focused on God’s kingdom.

    Example groups:

    • Anabaptists
    • Mennonites
    • Amish

    7. A Balanced Biblical Conclusion

    The Bible seems to suggest both responsibility and restraint.

    Christians should:

    ✔ Seek the welfare of society
    ✔ Promote justice and righteousness
    ✔ Pray for leaders (1 Timothy 2:1–2)
    ✔ Participate responsibly as citizens

    But also remember:

    ⚠ Political power cannot save humanity
    ⚠ The church’s mission is the gospel
    ⚠ Ultimate allegiance belongs to Christ’s kingdom

    ✅ In short:

    • Christians may participate in politics.
    • The church itself must not replace the gospel with politics.
    • Political engagement should reflect biblical ethics, humility, and love.
  • Why I Am No Longer a Tucker Carlson Fan

    Why I Am No Longer a Tucker Carlson Fan

    The first time I watched Tucker Carlson host a prime-time show on Fox News, I was immediately drawn in. His delivery was confident but not bombastic, his questions pointed yet measured. More importantly, he appeared to bring a certain intellectual curiosity to political commentary that was often missing from cable news.

    Night after night, I tuned in. I appreciated the way he challenged assumptions—sometimes conservative ones as well as liberal ones. His commentary often seemed grounded in a simple principle: ask uncomfortable questions and expose contradictions in the political class. Whether one agreed with him or not, there was a sense that he was engaging the issues with logic and a willingness to push back against conventional narratives.

    For a time, I thought to myself: this guy makes a lot of sense.

    What impressed me most was the tone of analysis. Carlson frequently framed issues through a lens of skepticism toward powerful institutions—government, corporations, media elites. That posture resonated with many viewers who felt that mainstream discourse had become too rigid or ideologically filtered. His arguments often seemed rooted in cultural critique rather than partisan talking points. It made his program feel different from the predictable rhythms of cable news debates.

    But somewhere along the way, something changed.

    Gradually, the tone of the commentary began to shift. The sharp questioning that once felt analytical began to feel more accusatory. The calm skepticism that once seemed intellectually curious increasingly sounded like certainty about sweeping claims. Instead of dissecting political issues with careful reasoning, the commentary often leaned toward insinuation and speculation.

    The difference was subtle at first, but over time it became hard to ignore.

    Carlson’s commentary, once framed as inquiry, began to resemble advocacy for increasingly conspiratorial interpretations of events. Rather than building arguments through verifiable facts and logical progression, segments sometimes relied on emotionally charged narratives about hidden motives and shadowy forces. The analytical edge that once defined the show seemed to give way to something more reactive and rhetorical.

    Cable news commentary always involves opinion—no one expects pure academic neutrality. But the most persuasive commentators still ground their views in evidence, competing perspectives, and logical argument. When that balance slips, analysis can easily turn into something else: performance.

    For me, the shift felt like a move from argument to agitation.

    It also seemed that the emotional tone intensified. Instead of presenting issues as questions worth exploring, the commentary increasingly framed them as crises driven by malicious actors. The world was portrayed less as a complex system of competing interests and more as a stage for deliberate schemes and cultural battles.

    That style of commentary can be compelling television. It energizes audiences and creates a sense of urgency. But it also risks oversimplifying reality. Political issues are messy, nuanced, and often frustratingly ambiguous. When commentary treats every controversy as proof of a grand narrative, skepticism begins to fade into certainty—and certainty into dogma.

    Ironically, the very quality that first attracted me to Carlson—his skepticism—seemed to disappear. Skepticism requires questioning all claims, even those that reinforce one’s preferred worldview. When questioning becomes selective, analysis loses its credibility.

    At some point, I realized I was no longer watching for insight. I was watching out of habit.

    Eventually, even that habit faded.

    The disappointment is not rooted in disagreement alone. Reasonable people can disagree on almost every political issue. What matters more is how arguments are made. I once saw Carlson as someone willing to examine issues critically, weigh evidence, and challenge conventional thinking with disciplined reasoning.

    Today, that version of him feels distant.

    Perhaps media incentives played a role. Cable news thrives on attention, and attention often rewards the loudest and most dramatic voices. Perhaps audiences changed, or perhaps Carlson himself changed after leaving Fox News and moving to new platforms. Whatever the cause, the result is a commentator who no longer resembles the one I first admired.

    And so, reluctantly but clearly, I’ve come to a conclusion:

    I am no longer a Tucker Carlson fan.

    Not out of hostility, but out of disappointment.

    Because the analyst I once respected seems to have given way to something else entirely—and once thoughtful commentary has been replaced, too often, by emotional certainty and conspiratorial framing.

    In the end, the reason is simple.

    I still value skepticism, facts, and logical analysis.

    And I no longer find them there.

  • Legal Justification vs Justification by Faith

    Legal Justification vs Justification by Faith

    Is there a distinction between legal justification and justification by faith?

    Yes—there is a distinction, though the terms are related. The Apostle Paul speaks of justification primarily in a legal/forensic sense, but the New Testament also presents a relational and transformative dimension that other apostles emphasize using different vocabulary. Let’s break it down carefully.

    What is “Legal Justification”?

    Legal justification refers to a courtroom declaration:
    God, the righteous Judge, declares a sinner righteous.

    This is the dominant meaning in Paul’s writings.

    Key passages from Epistle to the Romans and Epistle to the Galatians show this clearly:

    • Romans 3:24 – “justified freely by his grace”
    • Romans 5:1 – “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith…”
    • Galatians 2:16 – “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith”

    In Paul’s argument:

    Elements of Legal Justification

    1. Judge: God
    2. Defendant: sinful humanity
    3. Verdict: righteous
    4. Basis: Christ’s work
    5. Means: faith

    The imagery comes from law courts, not moral transformation.

    The believer is declared righteous, not made righteous at that moment.

    What is “Justification by Faith”?

    “Justification by faith” refers to how a person receives that verdict.

    Paul’s core argument:

    People are justified not by works of the law but through faith in Christ.

    Faith is the instrument, not the merit.

    Christ’s righteousness is the basis.

    Paul develops this heavily in the Epistle to the Romans and Epistle to the Galatians because he was addressing controversies about Jewish law and Gentile inclusion.

    Did Paul Distinguish Between These Two?

    Not really as separate doctrines.

    For Paul:

    Justification = legal declaration
    Faith = the means of receiving it

    So:

    Justification by faith = legal justification received through faith

    The two concepts belong together in Paul’s theology.

    Why Do Other Apostles Rarely Use the Word “Justification”?

    This is a fascinating observation.

    Other apostles emphasize the same salvation reality, but they use different theological vocabulary.

    Peter emphasizes new birth and holiness

    See the First Epistle of Peter

    • “born again”
    • “redeemed”
    • “sanctified”

    John emphasizes life and relationship

    In the Gospel of John and First Epistle of John

    • eternal life
    • abiding in Christ
    • being “children of God”

    James focuses on demonstrated righteousness

    The Epistle of James speaks of justification only twice (James 2).

    But James addresses a different issue:

    • Paul combats legalism
    • James combats dead faith

    So when James says:

    “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24)

    he means faith that proves itself genuine, not earning salvation.

    Different Problems, Different Language

    The apostles emphasized different aspects because they faced different pastoral problems.

    ApostleMain Problem AddressedLanguage Used
    PaulLegalism / Law of MosesJustification by faith
    JamesEmpty professionFaith shown by works
    PeterPerseverance under sufferingNew birth & holiness
    JohnFalse teachers / denial of ChristEternal life & abiding

    So the doctrine is unified, but the terminology differs.

    The Early Church Saw Salvation as Multi-Dimensional

    The New Testament uses many metaphors:

    Legal → Justification
    Family → Adoption
    Relational → Reconciliation
    Moral → Sanctification
    Life → New birth

    Paul simply leaned heavily on the legal metaphor.

    A Deeper Insight: Why Paul Focused on Justification

    Paul’s mission to the Gentiles forced a crucial question:

    How can non-Jews be accepted by God without becoming Jews?

    His answer:

    Not through the Law of Moses — but through faith in Christ.

    That is why justification became central in Paul’s theology.

    Summary

    • Legal justification = God’s courtroom declaration of righteousness.
    • Justification by faith = how that declaration is received.
    • Paul did not separate them—they belong together.
    • Other apostles emphasized the same salvation but used different imagery.
    • Their different emphases reflect different pastoral challenges.
  • An Essay on Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address

    An Essay on Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address


    Seen Through the Lens of a Canadian Immigrant North of the Border

    Watching a State of the Union address from Canada is a unique experience. Watching one delivered by Donald Trump as a legal immigrant now living north of the border adds yet another layer of complexity. Distance offers perspective. Immigration offers gratitude. Democracy—at least in North America—offers both privilege and responsibility.

    From my vantage point as a Canadian immigrant, the address felt like more than a domestic political speech. It was a reaffirmation of national identity. “America First” is a phrase that provokes strong reactions, but to immigrants who pursued lawful entry, respected process, and embraced the responsibilities of citizenship or residency, the sentiment can resonate deeply. Every sovereign nation has the right—indeed the obligation—to prioritize its citizens’ security, economic stability, and national interest. Canada does it. The United States does it. To insist that a country put its own people first is not inherently radical; it is foundational to the modern nation-state.

    Trump’s framing of economic nationalism, border enforcement, energy independence, and domestic manufacturing reflected a particular interpretation of democracy: government as a mechanism to serve its own citizens above global consensus. Whether one agrees with his policies or not, the message was clear—American prosperity and sovereignty should not be diluted by external pressures or international entanglements that disadvantage working Americans.

    From a Canadian standpoint, this rhetoric can seem assertive, even brash. Canada’s political culture often emphasizes multilateralism, diplomacy, and consensus-building. But the American political tradition has always tolerated a more muscular executive style. The U.S. presidency, by design, is theatrical. The State of the Union is not merely a report; it is a stage. And Trump, perhaps more than most presidents, understands performance as power.

    The deeper question, however, is whether what we witnessed was democracy at work—or democracy in peril.

    On one hand, democracy was undeniably alive in that chamber. Elected representatives from both parties sat present. Applause and protest coexisted. Dissent was visible. Cameras broadcast every reaction. This is what open government looks like: noisy, imperfect, transparent. In many parts of the world, such open disagreement would be suppressed. In the United States, it is televised in prime time.

    On the other hand, the reaction from Democratic members underscored the deep polarization defining contemporary American politics. Stone faces. Refusal to applaud policy achievements. Occasional visible protest. To supporters of the president, this appeared petty, obstructive, even disrespectful to the office. To opponents, it was principled resistance—an unwillingness to legitimize policies they viewed as harmful or divisive.

    Here lies the tension.

    Democracy thrives not merely on elections but on mutual legitimacy. When one side views the other not as a rival but as a threat, the system strains. Polarization itself is not new; American history is rich with fierce partisan conflict. But today’s political climate feels less like rivalry and more like tribalism. That is the peril—not strong leadership, not assertive rhetoric, but erosion of shared trust in institutions and motives.

    As a legal immigrant, I cannot help but reflect on the irony. Many of us came to North America precisely because of stable institutions, rule of law, and peaceful transfer of power. We admire strong leadership, yes—but we revere constitutional boundaries even more. “America First” can inspire pride; it can also demand caution. National strength must be paired with institutional humility.

    From Canada, the spectacle also serves as a reminder of our interconnectedness. American policies affect Canadian trade, border movement, energy markets, and defense. When the United States shifts its posture, Canada feels it. Watching the address, one senses that American political drama rarely stays confined within its own borders.

    Ultimately, whether this was democracy at work or democracy in peril depends less on one speech and more on what follows. Do institutions hold? Do elections remain free and trusted? Do opponents remain loyal to the Constitution even while opposing the president? If so, then what we saw was democracy functioning—loudly, imperfectly, passionately.

    If not—if polarization hardens into institutional sabotage, if rhetoric erodes confidence in elections, if disagreement morphs into dehumanization—then peril lurks not in one leader’s agenda but in the collective response to it.

    As a Canadian immigrant observing from just across the world’s longest undefended border, I see both pride and warning. Pride in a nation confident enough to debate itself publicly. Warning in the widening gulf between its political tribes.

    Democracy is not measured by applause lines or standing ovations. It is measured by resilience—the ability of institutions and citizens alike to endure strong personalities, fierce disagreements, and shifting political tides without breaking.

    In that sense, the true State of the Union is never delivered from the podium. It is revealed in the days, months, and years that follow.

  • “The God Who Speaks—And His Final Word is the Son”

    “The God Who Speaks—And His Final Word is the Son”

    Hebrews 1:1–3

    “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son…”

    There is a quiet awe in these opening lines of Hebrews. The writer doesn’t begin with an argument or a command—he begins with a reminder: God has always been a God who speaks. He is not distant, silent, or indifferent. From the beginning, He has been communicating—through creation, through covenant, through prophets, through poetry and visions and warnings and promises.

    But then comes the breathtaking shift: “In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son.”

    Not another prophet. Not another message. Not another glimpse or shadow. The Son Himself.

    This is the heart of the passage: God’s final, fullest, clearest revelation is not a text, a symbol, or a spiritual experience—it is a Person. Jesus is not merely the messenger; He is the message. Everything God wants us to know about His heart, His character, His will, His love, His holiness, His mercy, His justice—He has wrapped in the life and presence of His Son.

    The writer of Hebrews piles up descriptions to make sure we don’t miss the weight of this:

    • He is the heir of all things. Everything in creation is moving toward Him. History has a destination, and it is Christ.
    • Through Him God created the world. The One who walked dusty roads is the One who spoke galaxies into existence.
    • He is the radiance of God’s glory. Not a reflection. Not a dim echo. The radiance itself—God’s glory shining in human flesh.
    • He is the exact imprint of God’s nature. If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus. His compassion, His courage, His purity, His gentleness, His authority—this is God’s heart made visible.
    • He upholds the universe by the word of His power. The One who cried as an infant is the One who sustains every atom.
    • He made purification for sins and sat down at the right hand of Majesty. His work is complete. His sacrifice is enough. His reign is secure.

    All of this flows from that simple but staggering truth: God has spoken through His Son.

    What does this mean for us today?

    1. We don’t have to guess what God is like.

    In a world full of competing voices and distorted images of God, Jesus stands as the definitive revelation. When we feel confused about God’s character, we look to Christ. When we wonder how God responds to sinners, we look to Christ. When we question whether God sees us, loves us, or understands us, we look to Christ.

    2. We don’t need to chase new revelations to know God’s heart.

    God still guides, comforts, convicts, and leads—but He does so in harmony with the final Word He has already spoken. Jesus is the anchor, the center, the interpretive key. Everything else is secondary.

    3. We are living in the “last days”—the era of fulfillment.

    This doesn’t mean panic or fear. It means purpose. It means the promises are being completed. It means the kingdom has already begun in Christ and will be fully revealed when He returns. We live in the time of clarity, not shadows.

    4. God’s Word is personal, relational, and invitational.

    Because God’s final Word is a Person, the call is not merely to listen—but to follow, trust, and abide. Christianity is not primarily about mastering information; it is about knowing Christ.

    A Moment of Reflection

    Where in your life do you need to hear the voice of God again? Where have other voices grown louder? Where has fear or confusion crept in?

    Hebrews invites you to return to the Son—the One who radiates God’s glory, who sustains all things, who purifies, who reigns, who speaks.

    God has not left you in silence. He has spoken. And His Word is Jesus.

    Prayer

    Lord Jesus, You are the radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature. Thank You that in You we see God’s heart clearly. Quiet the noise around us and within us, and help us listen to Your voice above all others. Draw us deeper into Your presence, where truth, grace, and peace overflow. Amen.

  • “Show Us the Father”

    “Show Us the Father”

    How Jesus Makes the Heart of God Visible

    When Philip asked Jesus, “Show us the Father, and it is enough for us,” he was voicing a longing that runs through every human soul. We want to know what God is really like — not in theory, not in abstraction, but in a way we can see, trust, and hold onto. Jesus’ reply is stunning in its simplicity and its boldness:

    “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

    This is not a metaphor. This is not poetic exaggeration. This is the central claim of the Christian faith: Jesus is the perfect revelation of the Father’s heart.

    But what does that actually mean? What do we see in Jesus that shows us the Father?

    To answer that, we need to look at three places where Jesus reveals God most clearly: His teachings, His death, and His resurrection.

    1. Jesus’ Teachings Reveal the Father’s Character

    Jesus didn’t come merely to deliver information about God. He came to show us God — in stories, in actions, in relationships, in the way He moved through the world.

    A Father who runs toward sinners

    In the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus paints a Father who sprints toward His wayward child with joy, not suspicion. This is not a God who waits for us to get our act together. This is a God who meets us on the road home.

    A Father who is impossibly attentive

    Jesus tells us the Father knows our needs before we ask and counts the hairs on our heads. This is not distant deity. This is intimate care.

    A Father who delights to give

    “Fear not, little flock,” Jesus says, “for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” God is not reluctant. He is generous to His core.

    A Father who forgives beyond reason

    When Jesus teaches us to forgive “seventy times seven,” He is revealing the Father’s own heart — a forgiveness that does not run out.

    A Father who seeks the lost

    In every parable of Luke 15, God is the seeker — the shepherd, the woman, the father. Jesus is telling us: God is not waiting for you to find Him. He is already looking for you.

    When Jesus teaches, He is not describing a God we wish existed. He is revealing the God who does exist.

    2. Jesus’ Death Reveals the Father’s Love in Its Deepest Form

    If Jesus’ teachings show us the Father’s character, His death shows us the Father’s heart laid bare.

    The cross is the Father’s idea, not a divine tug‑of‑war

    “God so loved the world that He gave His Son.” The Father is not distant from the cross; He is the One who sends, gives, and participates in the sacrifice.

    The cross is divine self‑giving, not divine violence

    Jesus says, “No one takes my life from me; I lay it down.” The Father and the Son act together in perfect unity. This is not the Son rescuing us from the Father. This is the Father rescuing us through the Son.

    The cross is where justice and mercy meet

    God does not ignore evil — that would be unloving. But He does not abandon sinners — that would also be unloving. So He absorbs the cost Himself.

    The cross reveals God’s grief, not His rage

    “Father, forgive them.” These are not the words of a God eager to condemn. They are the words of a God who loves even in the moment of rejection.

    When we look at Jesus on the cross, we are seeing the Father’s heart exposed: self‑giving, forgiving, suffering love.

    3. Jesus’ Resurrection Reveals the Father’s Purpose and Promise

    If the cross shows us how far the Father will go to save us, the resurrection shows us what the Father intends for us.

    The Father restores what is broken

    “I am the resurrection and the life,” Jesus says. The Father is not content with forgiveness alone. He wants new creation — life beyond death, hope beyond despair.

    The Father keeps His promises

    Every word Jesus spoke about rising again is fulfilled. The resurrection is the Father’s “Yes” to everything Jesus taught and everything Jesus accomplished.

    The Father wants relationship, not distance

    After rising, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene:

    “I ascend to my Father and your Father.”

    Because of Jesus, the Father’s relationship with the Son becomes the pattern for His relationship with us. The resurrection is the Father opening His arms and saying, “Welcome home.”

    So What Did Jesus Mean?

    When Jesus says, “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father,” He is saying:

    • If you want to know how God treats sinners, look at Me.
    • If you want to know how God responds to suffering, look at Me.
    • If you want to know how God feels about the broken, the fearful, the ashamed, look at Me.
    • If you want to know how far God will go to save you, look at Me.
    • If you want to know God’s purpose for humanity, look at Me.

    Jesus is not the kinder side of God. Jesus is not the mediator softening the Father’s anger. Jesus is not the compassionate Son pleading with a reluctant Father.

    Jesus is the Father’s heart made visible.

    To see Jesus is to see the Father — in His compassion, His justice, His mercy, His grief, His generosity, His sacrifice, and His unstoppable love.

    Rating: 5 out of 5.