Design a site like this with
Get started

VIDEO Love God, Live As You Please

November 6, 2022 Jack Hibbs

Jesus offers a freedom that transcends any freedoms offered by governments or constitutions. It is a freedom of the heart and soul. Examine your God-given freedom with Pastor Jack Hibbs in today’s episode

Build An Intimate Marriage: How to Handle Conflict with Forgiveness

James 1:19-20

Intimacy in marriage is not easy. In the best of marriages, there are strong differences and contentions. The difference between good and bad marriages is problem-solving that leads to conflict resolution.

God made male and female. God-ordained marriage. Therefore, it is God who teaches us how to dwell together as heirs of the grace of life. Here are three rules He gives for how to “fight fair” when resolving conflict.

Learn How to Listen

“So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear…” (James 1:19a).

When you listen, it will encourage your spouse to talk. Encourage your mate to express himself or herself. When you come to a true understanding, you have an intimate relationship and greater marital satisfaction.


Listen with your eyes as well as your ears. Look particularly into your spouse’s eyes: if you are perceptive, you can see joy, fear, sadness, anger, or confusion. You can assess the well-being of the one you love.

If you look away, what does your body language say? “I’m not paying attention”—or—“I don’t like what I’m hearing.” Lean forward. Nod your head. Make warm and affirming eye contact, whether you are having an argument or not.


When the one you love more than anybody else is talking to you, give that person the courtesy of concentration. You will be amazed by how much you have been missing and at how your relationship satisfaction goes up!


Listen not only to the words but to what the words mean. Your husband or wife may get the words confused—in anger or frustration, he or she may exaggerate something, or say it backward. Don’t try to catch the one you love in an error. What are the feelings expressed in what is being said?


Make certain you understand. Once your spouse has said everything without interruption, then say, “Let me see if I understand…” There is always what we say, and what we think we said. And there is always what we hear, and what we thought we heard. Clarification is a good communication practice in all relationships, not just romantic relationships. It provides validation of the other person’s thoughts and feelings.

Watch Your Mouth

“So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak…” (James 1:19a).

We are expected to listen twice as much as we speak. There is nothing that can do more damage to your marriage or to any of your personal relationships than your words.

“In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is wise” (Proverbs 10:19).

“He who has knowledge spares his words” (Proverbs 17:27a).

“Whoever guards his mouth and tongue keeps his soul from troubles” (Proverbs 21:23).

The whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 13 deals with the use of the tongue. The famous passage, “Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy…” (see 1 Corinthians 13:4-7) is talking about love in the context of the tongue.

Here are some roles that married couples often assume during marital conflict:

The Judge

Someone assumes the position of judge. He or she wants to lay the blame and the sentence. Are any of these phrases heard around your house?

I told you so.

What’s wrong with you?

I can’t do anything to please you.

What on earth were you thinking?

All you ever do is think of yourself.

If those kinds of sentences have slipped into your arguments, you are playing the judge. Letting go of this practice will make a world of difference!

The Professor

This one assumes the superior position, and likes to put down his or her spouse with words like:

You’ll never measure up.


If you had an ounce of brains…

You wouldn’t understand; you’re a woman.

But, “Love does not parade itself, is not puffed up…” (1 Corinthians 13:4b).

The Psychologist

They think they have insight into why the other person does what they do. They are always psychoanalyzing the other person and developing hypotheses:

Now let me tell you why you said that…

Do you know why you think that way?

That is contrary to the Bible saying that love “does not behave rudely” (1 Corinthians 13:5a).

The Historian

For some reason, this person has a memory of every argument that’s ever taken place. In every family conflict, the historian brings out a little mental notebook.

That is a diversionary tactic. The historian doesn’t want to face the situation today. Love “thinks no evil” (1 Corinthians 13:5a). The NASB words it, love “does not keep an account of a wrong suffered.”

The Dictator

This person is a bully—physically, or verbally. When a person is dictatorial, he’ll say things like this:

Don’t you ever do that again.

I demand that this stop.

I will not allow that in this house.

Sometimes a husband will become a dictator by withholding money, and a wife will become a dictator by withholding love and sexual intimacy. Whether husband or wife, the dictator is saying (though not aloud), “I am more important than you are.”

The Critic

This person loves to compare his or her spouse to other people.

Why can’t you be more like [fill in the blank]?

You’re just like your father/mother.

The cruelest cut of all is when the critic singles out something over which the one being criticized has no control: physical traits, background, intellectual capacity, etc.

The Preacher

Don’t give your spouse a rerun of sermons.

The pastor said you’re supposed to forgive me.

The Bible does teach that, but it’s not up to you to say it to them. Worse than this is for you to become self-righteous. The Bible is a wonderful sword, but a poor club for beating your spouse over the head.

Lighten Up

“So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19).

Never go to bed angry. “‘Be angry, and do not sin’: do not let the sun go down on your wrath” (Ephesians 4:26). There is good, righteous anger—Jesus was angry, but for the right reason, over the right things, in the right way.

But if you have ungovernable anger, get on your face before God and confess it. It is not a weakness; it is wickedness. (See Ecclesiastes 7:9Proverbs 16:3229:22.)

How to Handle Conflict in Marriage

Suppose you and your spouse are having an argument. Here is what not to do: Don’t escape. There may be times when you need to be apart until you are cooled down, but do not run away. It’s like putting smoldering rags in a closet—it will come out. Get it settled, and get it settled today. (See Ephesians 4:26.)

If there is a piece of paper on the carpet and you pick it up the first time you see it, the carpet will stay tidy. But if you allow things to build up, before long, the entire carpet is dirty. Pick up issues one at a time and deal with them.

Don’t avoid. Don’t appease. If your mate is doing something wrong, and you always give in, before long you will resent that person. Compromise? Yes. Appease? No.

Don’t get into a head-to-head argument. “The wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20). Both of you will lose.

Make up your mind to accept the other person. Then, accommodate yourself to the one you love. Both of you, adjust. It does not get any easier over the years; if anything, it gets more complicated—but it can get sweeter every day.

Grant forgiveness. Don’t let negative feelings continue unabated. Unforgiveness is a cancer in a marriage.

List of Scriptures Referenced in this Article

James 1:19-20Proverbs 7:910:1916:3217:2721:2329:22; Corinthians 13:1-7; Ephesians 4:26Ecclesiastes 7:9

Other Bible Verses About Building an Intimate Marriage

Matthew 5:22-24

But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Luke 6:37

Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Matthew 7:2

For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

VIDEO MDs in USA admit they killed Patients during the Pandemic by putting them on Ventilators – Pfizer Executive: ‘Mutate’ COVID’ for Company Cash Cow


A jaw-dropping article published by The Wall Street Journal in December 2020 has resurfaced.  In it, American physicians admitted to ventilating patients who did not need it as a step in their protocol.  It was done not as a treatment that was likely to benefit the patient, but rather as a fruitless and callous way of attempting to stop the spread of covid-19.

Doctors are treating a new flood of critically ill coronavirus patients with treatments from before the pandemic, to keep more patients alive and send them home sooner.

Before the pandemic, between about 30% to more than 40% of ventilator patients died, according to research … As the pandemic grew, hospitals in the US reported death rates in some cases of about 50% for ventilated covid-19 patients.Hospitals Retreat from Early Covid Treatment and Return to Basics, The Wall Street Journal, 20 December 2020

Add to the fact that up to 50 per cent of covid-19 “cases” were just “PCR positive” false positives, wrote James Lyons-Weiler. “Euthanising humans is illegal. Especially for the benefit of other patients.”

Did Protocolists Euthanise Covid-19 Patients with Ventilators and Sedatives “To Save Other Patients”, >50% kill rate? Up to 70% of covid-19 Deaths Due to Ventilators

By James Lyons-Weiler

TRIGGER ALERT: If you lost a loved one to covid-19 and the doctors tried to ventilate your loved one early, please do not read any further. Have someone close to you read this, read the full article, and describe the article to you in a calm, quiet setting. You will need a friend to help you through this.

If you are a doctor who has been persecuted for doing the right thing, perhaps you lost your license or it is being threatened, send this Wall Street Journal article to your lawyers – and thank you for not acquiescing to the demands that you kill patients on ventilators and with strong sedatives.

Either way, I encourage PR readers to read the WSJ article yourself and see if you agree or disagree.

WSJ Article: McCullough, Kory, Lyons-Weiler, and Others Were Right

In a jaw-dropping article published by The Wall Street Journal – ‘Hospitals Retreat From Early Covid Treatment and Return to Basics – physicians admit to ventilating patients who did not need it as a step in their protocol – get this – not as a treatment that was likely to benefit the patient, but rather as a fruitless and callous way of attempting to stop the spread of covid-19.

Last spring, with less known about the disease, doctors often pre-emptively put patients on ventilators or gave powerful sedatives largely abandoned in recent years. The aim was to save the seriously ill and protect hospital staff from Covid-19.

Now hospital treatment for the most critically ill looks more like it did before the pandemic. Doctors hold off longer before placing patients on ventilators. Patients get less powerful sedatives, with doctors checking more frequently to see if they can halt the drugs entirely and dialling back how much air ventilators push into patients’ lungs with each breath.

“We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patient’s benefit, but to control the epidemic and to save other patients,” Dr. Iwashyna said “That felt awful.”

Yes, euthanising humans is illegal. Especially for the benefit of other patients. It should feel awful.

Last spring, doctors put patients on ventilators partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread when protective masks and gowns were in short supply. Doctors could have employed other kinds of breathing support devices that don’t require risky sedation, but early reports suggested patients using them could spray dangerous amounts of virus into the air, said Theodore Iwashyna, a critical-care physician at University of Michigan and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Ann Arbor, Mich.

Subsequent research found the alternative devices to ventilators, such as delivering oxygen through nasal tubes, weren’t as risky to caretakers as believed. Doctors also gained experience with covid-19 patients, learning to spot signs of who might suddenly turn seriously ill, some said.

The WSJ article describes a study conducted that now allows doctors to predict who needs a ventilator and who does not:

It found more doctors now follow the pre-pandemic protocols, which have reduced the number of deaths and shortened the time patients spend on ventilators, HCA’s chief medical officer said.

Before the pandemic, between about 30% to more than 40% of ventilator patients died, according to research. Numbers were sharply higher in the pandemic’s early hot spot in Wuhan, China. As the pandemic grew, hospitals in the US reported death rates in some cases of about 50% for ventilated covid-19 patients.

(25.6 – 7.6)/25.6 = 70% of Covid-19 Deaths Due to Ventilators? Up to 50% Who Died in Hospital Did Not Have covid-19?

One study of three New York City hospitals found the death rate for all covid-19 patients dropped to 7.6% from 25.6% between March and August after accounting for younger, healthier patients in the summer. Hospitals in New York were less crowded in August than during the April surge, which could increase mortality, the study’s authors wrote in October in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. The study also suggests patients may have benefited from new medications and improved treatment, they said.

Add to the fact that up to 50 per cent of covid-19 “cases” were just “PCR positive” false positives. This means under protocolists’ “care,” perhaps as many as 50% of people who died with a PCR positive test result died because of a false positive PCR test. They either never had covid-19, or they became infected in the hospital after going home for ten days with a respiratory ailment other than covid-19 that, if tended to properly with outpatient care, would never have led to hospitalisation.

Perverse Incentives to Ventilate Patients

In a remarkable rarity of “fact-checking” gone right during the heyday of covid-19 disinformation, USA Today actually verified Dr. Scott Jensen’s reports that hospitals were receiving financial incentives that he considered “gaming the system,” citing numerous independent so-called fact-checker opinion websites.

“We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as covid-19 and on ventilators as TRUE,” they reported in April 2020.

“Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with covid-19 or if it’s considered presumed (sic) they have covid-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat covid-19 cases.”

It’s REAL Early Treatment, Stupid

We were right. So many of us were right. Protocolists should have listened.

Further reading: Who Are the World’s Leading Authorities in covid-19 Treatment? James Lyons-Weiler, 27 September 2021

Immeasurably Callous: Now That the Vaccinated Are Being Hospitalised Far More, “Guidelines are just guidelines”

From the WSJ article“Researchers and doctors continue to study covid-19 patients who require ventilators, and some experts have called for flexibility from pre-pandemic standards for doctors to decide how to calibrate ventilators. ‘It’s personalisation, that’s the key word,’ said John Marini, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota. ‘Guidelines are just guidelines’.”

Anyone paying attention to the Public Health takeover of allopathy understands the reality that guidelines are only guidelines until someone in HHS or the White House decides to shut you down on personalised medicine.

We need harsh, hard investigations with consequences – and activists need to write bills tying the hands of protocolists to prevent them from ever again killing one patient to hypothetically save another – under threat of a murder charge.

We need legislation for “on-demand” scripts for off-label medicines that patients want for potentially deadly infections – regardless of “FDA Approval” – FDA does not, by definition, have to “approve” off-label scripts.

Also: there are helmet-based ventilator options – that are far less invasive, patients do not feel they are being attacked or strangled – and they come with free training.

About the Author

James Lyons-Weiler is a research scientist and author of ‘Cures vs. Profits’, ‘Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism’, and  ‘Ebola: An Evolving Story’.  He regularly publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘Popular Rationalism’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.

Pfizer Executive: ‘Mutate’ COVID via ‘Directed Evolution’ for Company to Continue Profiting Off of Vaccines … ‘COVID is Going to be a Cash Cow for Us’ … ‘That is Not What We Say to the Public’ … ‘People Won’t Like That’ … ‘Don’t Tell Anyone’

  • Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations – mRNA Scientific Planner: “One of the things we’re exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it [COVID] ourselves so we could create — preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we’re gonna do that though, there’s a risk of like, as you could imagine — no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses.”
  • Walker: “Don’t tell anyone. Promise you won’t tell anyone. The way it [the experiment] would work is that we put the virus in monkeys, and we successively cause them to keep infecting each other, and we collect serial samples from them.”
  • Walker: “You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus [COVID] that you mutate doesn’t create something that just goes everywhere. Which, I suspect, is the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bullsh*t.”
  • Walker: “From what I’ve heard is they [Pfizer scientists] are optimizing it [COVID mutation process], but they’re going slow because everyone is very cautious — obviously they don’t want to accelerate it too much. I think they are also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing because you obviously don’t want to advertise that you are figuring out future mutations.”

[NEW YORK – Jan. 25, 2023] Project Veritas released a new video today exposing a Pfizer executive, Jordon Trishton Walker, who claims that his company is exploring a way to “mutate” COVID via “Directed Evolution” to preempt the development of future vaccines.

Walker says that Directed Evolution is different than Gain-of-Function, which is defined as “a mutation that confers new or enhanced activity on a protein.” In other words, it means that a virus such as COVID can become more potent depending on the mutation / scientific experiment performed on it.

The Pfizer executive told a Veritas journalist about his company’s plan for COVID vaccines, while acknowledging that people would not like this information if it went public.

“One of the things we [Pfizer] are exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it [COVID] ourselves so we could create — preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we’re gonna do that though, there’s a risk of like, as you could imagine — no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses,” Walker said.

“From what I’ve heard is they [Pfizer scientists] are optimizing it [COVID mutation process], but they’re going slow because everyone is very cautious — obviously they don’t want to accelerate it too much. I think they are also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing because you obviously don’t want to advertise that you are figuring out future mutations,” he said.

“Don’t tell anyone. Promise you won’t tell anyone. The way it [the experiment] would work is that we put the virus in monkeys, and we successively cause them to keep infecting each other, and we collect serial samples from them.”

Walker drew parallels between this current Pfizer project and what may have happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

“You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus [COVID] that you mutate doesn’t create something that just goes everywhere. Which, I suspect, is the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bullsh*t,” he said.

“You’re not supposed to do Gain-of-Function research with viruses. Regularly not. We can do these selected structure mutations to make them more potent. There is research ongoing about that. I don’t know how that is going to work. There better not be any more outbreaks because Jesus Christ,” he said.

Walker also told the Veritas journalist that COVID has been instrumental for Pfizer’s recent business success:

Walker:Part of what they [Pfizer scientists] want to do is, to some extent, to try to figure out, you know, how there are all these new strains and variants that just pop up. So, it’s like trying to catch them before they pop up and we can develop a vaccine prophylactically, like, for new variants. So, that’s why they like, do it controlled in a lab, where they say this is a new epitope, and so if it comes out later on in the public, we already have a vaccine working.

Veritas Journalist:Oh my God. That’s perfect. Isn’t that the best business model though? Just control nature before nature even happens itself? Right?

Walker:Yeah. If it works.

Veritas Journalist:What do you mean if it works?

Walker:Because some of the times there are mutations that pop up that we are not prepared for. Like with Delta and Omicron. And things like that. Who knows? Either way, it’s going to be a cash cow. COVID is going to be a cash cow for us for a while going forward. Like obviously.

Veritas Journalist:Well, I think the whole research of the viruses and mutating it, like, would be the ultimate cash cow.

Walker:Yeah, it’d be perfect.

Walker went on to explain how Big Pharma and government officials, such as at the Food & Drug Administration [FDA], have mutual interests, and how that is not in the best interest of the American people:

Walker:[Big Pharma] is a revolving door for all government officials.

Veritas Journalist:Wow.

Walker:In any industry though. So, in the pharma industry, all the people who review our drugs — eventually most of them will come work for pharma companies. And in the military, defense government officials eventually work for defense companies afterwards.

Veritas Journalist:How do you feel about that revolving door?

Walker:It’s pretty good for the industry to be honest. It’s bad for everybody else in America.

Veritas Journalist:Why is it bad for everybody else?

Walker:Because when the regulators reviewing our drugs know that once they stop regulating, they are going to work for the company, they are not going to be as hard towards the company that’s going to give them a job.

About Project Veritas

James O’Keefe established Project Veritas in 2010 as a non-profit journalism enterprise to continue his undercover reporting work. Today, Project Veritas investigates and exposes corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions to achieve a more ethical and transparent society and to engage in litigation to: protect, defend and expand human and civil rights secured by law, specifically First Amendment rights including promoting the free exchange of ideas in a digital world; combat and defeat censorship of any ideology; promote truthful reporting; and defend freedom of speech and association issues including the right to anonymity. O’Keefe serves as the CEO and Chairman of the Board so that he can continue to lead and teach his fellow journalists, as well as protect and nurture the Project Veritas culture.

Project Veritas is a registered 501(c)3 organization. Project Veritas does not advocate specific resolutions to the issues raised through its investigations.



Here I Am, Send Me

Adam would be nothing without Eve

She is the vessel in which humanity was conceived

When evil perpetrated their marriage they fell together

Never giving up hope that tomorrow would be better

When the innocence was lost and corruption settled in

They held each other tightly to overcome the wind.

God did not intend for Man to be alone so He split him in two.

God did not intend for me to be alone so He gave me you

We have our highs and we have our lows because we have definitely encountered wind

But just as God compelled Adam to hold onto Eve this is what gives us strength within

As the years passed by Adam would become a father to many girls and boys

I sometimes ponder why God held this back from me and it can feel like a void

But then I realize how much I love you and the hole is fortified and sealed

The feeling of emptiness washes away and my heart becomes filled.

I remain excited to deepen our faith together to make our union stronger

United as an impenetrable force through the love and strength of our Father.

I’ll always remember the first moment I reached out and held your hand.

At that coffee shop, in the middle of the night, by that lake…it all seemed so planned.

The Word says a family is you and I under God and children are a beautiful addition

If it is His will for our family to remain just you and me then my outpouring of love exclusively for you will remain my life’s mission.

I must always give my heart to Jesus first because I know this is what makes me love you right

But sometimes “the world” happens and it obstructs my sight

Whenever I faulter, fail, fall hard, and can no longer stand

You’re always there to forgive, and pick me up to be a better man.

You make everything beautiful by you just being you

Wherever God calls you then I will be there too.

We will laugh, we will cry, we will grow old together

We will be with each other throughout this life and also in the forever

My hope and prayer is someday, while we sleep at night…

We fly off to our Father together… holding each other tight.

What the One Anothers Do

Matt Ng | October 11, 2022

In the life of the believer, there can be tendency to make a spiritual to-do list of the “one-another” commands—the fifty-nine or so phrases sprinkled throughout the New Testament that characterize our Christian responsibility of love toward one another, literally signified by the words “one another.” Given both the sheer number of them and their varying difficulty to apply, remembering all of these responsibilities we have for others in the church—let alone living them out faithfully—seems a task impossible for even the most mature believer. Thus, the one-anothers become a to-do list of recurring responsibilities, with some consistently lived out, some pursued when convenient, and yet others neglected.

The one-anothers form a crucial category of instruction for the life of the church that reflects the Christlike love we are to have for each other, enumerating elements of care for one another in the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:25), bearing the fruit of the Spirit in the life of the church (Gal 5:22–23), and ultimately forming a testimony of the Gospel to the world (John 13:34–35). In and of themselves, the one-anothers are filled with action: we are to love, care for, serve, bear with, bear the burdens of, teach, comfort, encourage, pray for, confess to, be kind to, stir up, and exhort one another—to name a few. That’s a lot to do.

Amidst this plethora of church life to-dos, there are a few underlying actions that are constantly running in the background—simple actions that are integral to the one-anothers as a whole. What goes on in our hearts and minds when the church is living out the one-anothers like it should? How exactly should we embark on this intimidating endeavor of devoting ourselves to the one-anothers? Here are 4 actions that set a foundation for a life committed to the one-anothers:

1. The one anothers give.

As responsibilities of love that are centered on others in the body of Christ, the one-anothers are inherently a giving endeavor. When you live out the one-anothers, you give of yourself: your time, your attention, your rights, your preferences, or your resources.  You make a conscious decision to let go of whatever it might take in order to best love, serve, or care for someone else. The idea that because you are a follower of Jesus, you would divest of yourself to benefit others (and not just as a tax-deductible good deed for the day), is a radical concept in a world that measures in net worth, uplifts self-worth, and revolves around you. But that’s exactly what we are called to in the one-anothers—a lifestyle of giving, that others would be benefitted, encouraged, and helped, and the body of Christ built up.

The basis for this kind of selfless giving is our Savior’s own giving of Himself, even unto death (Phil 2:3–8). In His example, we see a mindset of service toward one another such that you “consider others more significant than yourselves” (Phil 2:3). Beyond being the ultimate example for the kind of humility that is fixed on serving and loving others, the truth is that this redeemed mindset is also “yours in Christ Jesus” (Phil 2:5).

Thus, enabled by the Spirit and given the mind of Christ, we can give like He gave and die to ourselves like He died, all for the benefit of others around us.

Whether it’s giving up your rights to hold something over someone when we forgive one another (Eph 4:32), giving up your entitlement to your opinions and preferences as you pursue living in harmony with one another (Rom 15:5), or giving of yourself in terms of emotion, effort, or resources as you seek to love others earnestly from a pure heart (1 Pet 1:22)—the one-anothers give.

2. The one anothers listen.

How can we most helpfully care for one another, bear one another’s burdens, comfort one another, or pray for one another? We must listen. We must be keenly aware of others’ actual struggles, sorrows, burdens, and needs. We must therefore, with our ears, seek to understand others in order to appropriately and selflessly carry out our responsibility of love for one another. The kind of listening integral to the one-anothers is admittedly different from the kind of listening we first think of in Scripture (that of listening to God and His Word), but all species of listening share the common posture of humble receptiveness.

When we choose to listen to the Word of God, we exercise humility before the God whose word it is; when we choose to listen to someone else as they share their heart, we exercise humility with a fellow image-bearer.

By listening, we acknowledge that we do not yet fully know someone else’s situation and combat the instinct to instantaneously assess their heart or their needs without their input. We must first listen in order to understand their heart and their needs, and then seek to fulfill those needs in the one-anothers.

Scripture is loaded with instances of God’s listening presence for His people, which is a powerful paradigm for the connection between listening and love for others. One poignant example is at the end of Exodus 2, when God heard the groaning of His people, remembered His covenant, and simply “knew” (Exod 2:21–23). A similar concept is seen all over the Psalms, as the psalmists cry out to God for Him to “give ear to my word” (Ps 5), “hear my cry, O God; listen to my prayer (Ps 61), and “hear my prayer, O Lord (Ps 102; 143). The Psalms also display the worshipful response of the psalmist to God’s listening presence, epitomized in Psalm 116: 

    “I love the LORD, because he has heard

        my voice and my pleas for mercy.

    Because he inclined his ear to me,

        therefore I will call on him as long as I live.”

With God, to be heard in prayer is to experience His steadfast love and care. That is exactly why listening must be at the very heart of our pursuit of the one-anothers. To listen is to receive, storing up consideration and context for our care, so as not to jump to conclusions or rush to hasty judgment. To listen is to begin the process of care, concern, and love in other’s lives, gathering and observing important information to then be able to love and serve others in appropriate ways, to forgive one another and not offend in the process, and pray for one another with specificity and empathy. When we listen well in our pursuit of the one-anothers, we begin to manifest the same listening and comforting presence for one another as God does for us. It is when we listen that we then have an opportunity to practice the one-anothers that much more helpfully.

3. The one anothers speak.

Alongside the importance of listening, we must also understand the importance of speaking as we seek to live out the one-anothers. When we think of what Scripture has to say about the use of our words, we mainly (and rightfully) think of the need to tame the fire that is the tongue (James 3:1–12). But our speech must be much more than just something to control. In fact, the one-anothers reflect the value of words used well, found in our encouraging, comforting, stirring up, and exhorting one another. If in the one-anothers we are seeking to give of ourselves generously, our words are perhaps the most valuable currency we can give. Many of the one-anothers require that we use our words in a way that is “good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph 4:29). In that seasoned-with-salt style, Hebrews 3:13 captures well the overall intent of speaking in the one-anothers: “But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.”

What if, as we thought about how we use our words, we considered the positive effect they could have in the one-anothers just as much as we considered the damaging effects of the tongue? What if, out of a desire to earnestly love one another from the heart, we began to think about how we could speak more warmly and humbly, or how we could ask more thoughtful and helpful questions of others to draw out what was on their hearts? What if we encouraged more, followed up on our last conversations better, challenged one another more, warned each other of the deceitfulness of sin more faithfully, and affirmed others more generously—all with our words? In pursuit of the one-anothers, we ought to develop new channels of communication in our words to others—expanded vocabulary and tone, so to speak, and a new willingness to use our words in ways the benefit others. Through our speech, we have the opportunity to deepen our relationships, stirring up more spiritual fodder for growth, sharpening, and challenging.

4. The one anothers pray.

Perhaps most significantly, a faithful pursuit of the one-anothers requires devotion to prayer, in ways that are both preparatory and powerful.

On a deep level and on a daily level, we must prepare our hearts in prayer, submitting our will to God’s and therefore cultivating a willingness to be an instrument in God’s work in others’ lives.

If we are going to forgive, care for, love, bear with, comfort, and confess to one another like we should, we must first do the preparatory heart work of conforming our will to the Father’s. This heart of submission to God’s will is demonstrated in the “Your will be done” posture of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9–13), and exemplified vividly by Christ Himself in His submission to the Father in Gethsemane (Matt 26:39). As we devote ourselves to carrying out God’s will in the one-anothers after the pattern of our Savior, it is only fitting that we engage in the overt act of submission that is prayer.

We must also pray because it is in prayer that we turn our hearts to acknowledge and ask God to work in and through us. We must, in prayer, recognize and request great things of the awesome power of God in our pursuit of love for others in the church. Everything we do in the one-anothers, whether via giving, listening, or speaking, must be undergirded constantly by prayer. Anything we hope to accomplish in our stirring one another up to love and good deeds, our bearing one another’s burdens, our hospitality to one another, our exhortation of one another, or our serving one another—can only flourish by the power of God. So, we must pray. As we live out the one-anothers, the Ephesians 4 building up of the body of Christ will occur because God is at work, so we must faithfully ask Him to work.

As we give, listen, speak, and pray in living out the one-another’s, would Paul’s prayer in Colossians 1:9–12 be the tenor of our prayers as we seek to present others mature in Christ through the one-anothers:

“And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; being strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy; giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.”

Matt Ng

Matt Ng is a graduate of The Master’s Seminary. He works at Grace Community Church and serves in the college ministry.

Nicodemus, the Friendly Pharisee

by John MacArthur  December 5, 2022

This post was first published in December, 2018. —ed.

The gospel of John doesn’t attract much attention during the Christmas season. Instead, we are usually drawn to the birth narratives found in the accounts of Luke and Matthew. However, John captures the essence of Christmas beautifully in the opening prologue to his gospel account: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John did not feel the need to elaborate further on the incarnation. Instead, his gospel moves rapidly to the launch of Christ’s ministry at His baptism (John 1:29). John’s focus is the relentless march to Calvary and the fulfillment of the promise delivered in His birth, that “in Him was life, and the life was the Light of men” (John 1:4).

And while it’s appropriate to celebrate the grace and mercy on display as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe took on flesh to become the sacrifice for His people, we must not make the mistake of isolating our view of Christ to His infancy. The glory and power of Christ’s incarnation isn’t captured in the nativity scene alone. To fully appreciate the baby in the manger, we need to look ahead to His finished work at the cross.

With that in mind, we want to spend the next few days considering a pivotal episode from early in John’s gospel. In a clandestine conversation with a powerful Pharisee, Christ Himself explains why He was born and why He had to die—in essence, He gives the gospel to Nicodemus before the promise of the incarnation was even fulfilled.

And for those of us living on this side of the cross, there is perhaps no fuller way to celebrate the baby in the manger than to consider what His life was meant to accomplish.

An Unusually Friendly Pharisee

The account of Nicodemus in John 3 stands out as the only significant example of an extended friendly dialogue between Jesus and a Pharisee. In fact, it stands out as the longest personal conversation Jesus had with any religious leader in all the gospel accounts.

What makes this meeting so unusual is Nicodemus’s response to Jesus. Jesus was no less blunt with him than He was with any Pharisee. But Nicodemus evidently came to Jesus truly wishing to learn, rather than with the typical pharisaical agenda of self-aggrandizement at Jesus’ expense. And the result was a markedly different sort of exchange.

While the conversation with Nicodemus begins in John 3, we find the context for their discussion in the closing verses of chapter 2. John writes:

Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man. (John 2:23–25)

It had been a busy week of public ministry for Jesus. It is the first time on record that He performed numerous miracles, and He did them publicly. Interestingly, John’s account of that week doesn’t focus on the miracles at all. In fact, John mentions them only once in passing, without even saying what kind of miracles they were: “Many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing” (John 2:23). Presumably the signs John speaks of were healings and demonic deliverances, because such miracles became a staple of Jesus’ public ministry (Mark 1:34). But John does not pause to describe them here.

His main point in mentioning these initial miracles was to record that Jesus gained both fame and followers that week, and yet Jesus remained somewhat reservedeven alooftoward His many would-be disciples.

John is saying that many people responded to Jesus with a kind of enthusiasm that fell short of wholehearted faith, so He didn’t completely trust them, either. In other words, they said they believed Him, but He didn’t believe them. He had no faith in their faith.

Nicodemus seems to have approached Jesus shortly after the first temple cleansing (John 2:13-22)—perhaps later that same week, during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It is clear from the gospel narrative that Nicodemus’s interest in Christ was genuine. Still, it fell short of authentic saving faith—and Jesus made that clear in his first words to Nicodemus.

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

We’ll dig into that powerful passage next time. But here is a practical lesson from this account: a positive response to Jesus should never be taken as proof of authentic trust in Him. There is a shallow, fickle brand of “belief” that is not saving faith at all. From the first public miracle He performed until this very day, there have always been people who “accept Christ” without truly loving Him, without submitting to His authority, and without abandoning their self-confidence and trust in their own good works. That is precisely what John describes at the end of John 2, and that becomes his transition into the Nicodemus narrative. Nicodemus was (at this point) one of those almost-believers to whom Jesus did not automatically commit Himself.

(Adapted from The Jesus You Can’t Ignore)

VIDEO WHO Proposals Could Strip Nations of Their Sovereignty, Create Worldwide Totalitarian State, Expert Warns – Success in Combatting Pre Criminal Activity

In an interview with The Defender, Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., bioweapons expert and professor of international law at the University of Illinois, said the World Health Organization’s (WHO) latest proposals may violate international law. Boyle called for U.S. federal and state governments to exit the WHO immediately.

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

who world health totalitarian feature

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the DayIt’s free.

Secretive negotiations took place this week in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss proposed amendments to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR), considered a binding instrument of international law.

Similar negotiations took place last month for drafting a new WHO pandemic treaty.

While the two are often conflated, the proposed IHR amendments and the proposed pandemic treaty represent two separate but related sets of proposals that would fundamentally alter the WHO’s ability to respond to “public health emergencies” throughout the world — and, critics warn, significantly strip nations of their sovereignty.

According to author and researcher James Roguski, these two proposals would transform the WHO from an advisory organization to a global governing body whose policies would be legally binding.

They also would greatly expand the scope and reach of the IHR, institute a system of global health certificates and “passports” and allow the WHO to mandate medical examinations, quarantine and treatment.

Roguski said the proposed documents would give the WHO power over the means of production during a declared pandemic, call for the development of IHR infrastructure at “points of entry” (such as national borders), redirect billions of dollars to the “Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex” and remove mention of “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, said the proposed documents may also contravene international law.

Boyle, author of several international law textbooks and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, recently spoke with The Defender about the dangers — and potential illegality — of these two proposed documents

Other prominent analysts also sounded the alarm.

Proposals would create ‘worldwide totalitarian medical and scientific police state’

Meeting in Geneva between Jan. 9-13, the WHO’s IHR Review Committee worked to develop “technical recommendations to the [WHO’s] Director-General on amendments proposed by State Parties to the IHR,” according to a WHO document.

The IHR was first enacted in 2005, in the aftermath of SARS-CoV-1, and took effect in 2007. They constitute one of only two legally binding treaties the WHO has achieved since its inception in 1948 — the other being the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

As previously reported by The Defender, the IHR framework already allows the WHO director-general to declare a public health emergency in any country, without the consent of that country’s government, though the framework requires the two sides to first attempt to reach an agreement.

According to the same WHO document, the recommendations of the IHR Review Committee and the member states’ Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR) will be reported to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus by mid-January, in the leadup to the WHO’s 76th World Health Assembly in late May.

Boyle said he questioned the legality of the above documents, citing for instance the fact that “the proposed WHO treaty violates the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,” which was ratified in 1969, and which Boyle described as “the international law of treaties for every state in the world.”

Boyle explained the difference between the latest pandemic treaty and IHR proposals. “The WHO treaty would set up a separate international organization, whereas the proposed regulations would work within the context of the WHO we have today.”

However, he said, “Having read through both of them, it’s a distinction without a difference.” He explained:

“Either one or both will set up a worldwide totalitarian medical and scientific police state under the control of Tedros and the WHO, which are basically a front organization for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Tony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, the biowarfare industry and the Chinese Communist government that pays a good chunk of their bills.

“Either they’ll get the regulations or they’ll get the treaty, but both are existentially dangerous. These are truly dangerous, existentially dangerous and insidious documents.”

Boyle, who has written extensively on international law and argued cases on behalf of Palestine and Bosnia in the International Court of Justice, told The Defender he has “never read treaties and draft international organizations that are so completely totalitarian as the IHR regulations and the WHO treaty,” adding:

“Either one or both will set up a totalitarian medical and scientific police state that will be beyond the control of national, state and  local government authorities.

“Both the IHR regulations and the WHO treaty, as far as I can tell from reading them, are specifically designed to circumvent national, state and local government authorities when it comes to pandemics, the treatment for pandemics and also including in there, vaccines.”

Talks for both the proposed pandemic treaty and the proposed IHR amendments appear to follow a similar timeline, in order to be submitted for consideration during the WHO’s World Health Assembly May 21-30.

“It’s clear to me they are preparing both the regulations and the treaty for adoption by the World Health Assembly in May of 2023,” Boyle said. “That’s where we stand right now as I see it.”

According to the WHO, the International Negotiating Body (INB) working on the Pandemic Treaty will present a “progress report” at the May meeting, with a view toward presenting its “final outcome” to the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024.

BUY NOW: Ed Dowd’s Must-Read Book — “Cause Unknown”

Boyle: proposed legally-binding pandemic treaty violates international law

Commenting on the pandemic treaty, Tedros said, “The lessons of the pandemic must not go unlearned.” He described the current “conceptual zero draft” of the treaty as “a true reflection of the aspirations for a different paradigm for strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.”

Roguski, in his analysis of the “Pandemic Treaty,” warned that it will create a “legally binding framework convention that would hand over enormous additional, legally binding authority to the WHO.”

The WHO’s 194 member states would, in other words, “agree to hand over their national sovereignty to the WHO.” This would “dramatically expand the role of the WHO,” by including an “entirely new bureaucracy,” the “Conference of the Parties,” which would include not just member states but “relevant stakeholders.”

This new bureaucracy, according to Roguski, would “be empowered to analyze social media to identify misinformation and disinformation in order to counter it with their own propaganda.”

The WHO currently partners with numerous such organizations, such as “fact-checking” firm NewsGuard, for these purposes.

Roguski said the pandemic treaty also would speed up the approval process for drugs and injectables, provide support for gain-of-function research, develop a “Global Review Mechanism” to oversee national health systems, implement the concept of “One Health,” and increase funding for so-called “tabletop exercises” or “simulations.”

One Health,” a brainchild of the WHO, is described as “an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and the environment” that “mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities” and “is particularly important to prevent, predict, detect, and respond to global health threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In turn, “tabletop exercises” and “simulations” such as “Event 201,” were remarkably prescient in “predicting” the COVID-19 and monkeypox outbreaks before they actually occurred.

Roguski said the pandemic treaty would provide a structure to redirect massive amounts of money “via crony capitalism to corporations that profit from the declarations of Public Health Emergencies of International Concern” (‘pandemics’) and “the fear-mongering that naturally follows such emergency declarations.”

Boyle warned that the treaty and proposed IHR regulations go even further. “The WHO, which is a rotten, corrupt, criminal, despicable organization, will be able to issue orders going down the pike to your primary care physician on how you should be treated in the event they proclaim a pandemic.”

Moreover, Boyle said, the pandemic treaty would be unlike many other international agreements in that it would come into immediate effect. He told The Defender:

“If you read the WHO Treaty, at the very end, it says quite clearly that it will come into effect immediately upon signature.

“That violates the normal processes for ratification of treaties internationally under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and also under the United States Constitution, requiring the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to the terms of the treaty by two-thirds vote.”

Indeed, Article 32 of the proposed treaty regarding its “Provisional application” states:

“The [treaty] may be applied provisionally by a Party that consents to its provisional application by so notifying the Depository in writing at the time of signature or deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or accession.

“Such provisional application shall become effective from the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”

“Whoever drafted that knew exactly what they were doing to bring it into force immediately upon signature,” said Boyle. “Assuming the World Health Assembly adopts the treaty in May, Biden can just order Fauci or whoever his representative is there to sign the treaty, and it will immediately come into effect on a provisional basis,” he added.

“I don’t know, in any of my extensive studies of international treaties, let alone treaties setting up international organizations, of any that has a provision like that in it,” said Boyle. “It’s completely insidious.”

Proposed amendments to IHR described as a WHO ‘power grab’

According to Roguski, who said the WHO is “attempting a power grab,” the proposed amendments to the IHR may be even more concerning than the pandemic treaty.

Roguski wrote that while he believes the pandemic treaty is “an important issue,” he also thinks it is “functioning as a decoy that is designed to distract people from the much larger and more immediate threat to our rights and freedoms, which are the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.”

The IHR Review Committee working on the proposed amendments “began its work on 6 October 2022,” according to a WHO document, and has convened five times since then, including this week’s meetings in Geneva. Access to the meetings was prohibited for the unvaccinated.

The final proposals of the IHR Review Committee and the WGIHR will be presented to Tedros in mid-January and to the World Health Assembly in May. According to Roguski, “If the proposed amendments are presented to the 76th World Health Assembly, they could be adopted by a simple majority of the 194 member nations.”

As a result, Roguski said, compared to the proposed pandemic treaty, “The amendments to the International Health Regulations are a much more immediate and direct threat to the sovereignty of every nation and the rights and freedoms of every person on earth.”

According to Roguski, “The proposed amendments would seek to remove 3 very important aspects of the existing regulations,” including “removing respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” from the text of the IHR, changing the IHR from “non-binding” to “legally binding” and obligating nations to “assist” other nations.

“Essentially, the WHO’s Emergency Committee would be given the power to overrule actions taken by sovereign nations,” Roguski said.

According to Boyle, similarly to the pandemic treaty, “again, Biden can instruct his representative in May, assuming they adopt the regulations, to sign the regulations. And then, the Biden administration will treat that as a binding international agreement, just like they did with the 2005 regulations,” referring to the original IHR ratified that year.

He added:

“Those [the 2005 IHR] were signed and the U.S. State Department at that time considered them to be a legally binding international executive agreement that they list in the official State Department publication, ‘Treaties in Force.’

“In other words, they treat the 2005 regulations as if they were a treaty that never received the advice and consent of the United States Senate, and therefore the supreme law of the land under Article 6 of the United States Constitution that would be binding upon all state and local governments here in the United States, even if they are resisting, the IHR regulations or the WHO treaty.”

According to Roguski, “The proposed amendments would implement a great number of changes that everyone should absolutely disagree with.”

These changes include “dramatically expand[ing] the scope of the International Health Regulations from dealing with actual risks to dealing with anything that had the potential to be a risk to public health,” which Roguski said “would open up the doors wide to massive abuse beyond anything we have seen over the past three years.”

The proposed amendments also would shift the WHO’s focus “away from the health of real people” to “place primary preference upon the resilience of health care systems,” and would establish a “National Competent Authority” that “would be given great power to implement the obligations under these regulations,” Roguski said.

If the amendments come to pass, Roguski said, “The WHO will no longer need to consult any sovereign nation in which an event may or may not be occurring within that nation before declaring that there is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern within the borders of that nation.”

“Intermediate Public Health Alert[s],” “Public Health Emergenc[ies] of Regional Concern” and “World Alert and Response Notice[s]” could also be declared by the WHO’s director general, while the WHO would be recognized “as the guidance and coordinating authority during international emergencies.”

During such real or “potential” emergencies, the amendments would empower the WHO to mandate a variety of policies globally, which would be legally binding on member nations.

These policies could include requiring medical examinations or proof of such exams, requiring proof of vaccination, refusing travel, implementing quarantine and contact tracing or requiring travelers to furnish health declarations, to fill out passenger locator forms and to carry digital global health certificates.

“Competent health authorities” would also be empowered to commandeer aircraft and ships, while surveillance networks to “quickly detect public health events” within member nations would also be set up, as per the proposed amendments.

The WHO would also be empowered to be involved in the drafting of national health legislation.

The proposed amendments would give the WHO the power to develop an “Allocation Plan,” allowing it to commandeer the means of production of pharmaceuticals and other items during an “emergency,” and would oblige developed nations to provide “assistance” to developing nations.

“The proposed amendments … would facilitate digital access to everyone’s private health records,” Roguski said, and similar to the proposals in the pandemic treaty, would “also facilitate the censorship of any differing opinions under the guise of mis-information or dis-information.”

Roguski said the proposals are being made despite a “lack of input from the general public” by “unknown and unaccountable delegates” using vague and “undefined terminology” and vague criteria “by which to measure preparedness.”

He said the proposals would “trample our rights and restrict our freedoms,” including the right to privacy, to choose or refuse treatment, to express one’s opinions, to protect one’s children, to be with family and friends and to be free from discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of one’s vaccination status.

“The finality of decisions made by the Emergency Committee” foreseen by the amendments “would be a direct attack on national sovereignty,” Roguski said.

How did we get here?

According to the WHO, the members of the INB — during a meeting in Geneva July 18-21, 2022 — reached a “consensus,” agreeing that any new “convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” would be “legally binding” on member states.

For Boyle, this is the WHO’s response to the “enormous opposition” to the COVID-19-related restrictions of the past three years. He told The Defender:

“As far as I can figure out what happened here was this: As you know, there has been enormous opposition here in the United States [against] these totalitarian edicts coming out, and this was under both Trump and Biden.

“These totalitarian edicts coming out of the federal government, the White House, the CDC, everyone else on this pandemic and also the vaccine mandates, there’s enormous grassroots opposition. And so, as far as I can tell what happened, this culminated in Trump pulling us out of the WHO, which I think was a correct decision.

“So you know, I’m a political independent. I’m just looking at this subjectively. Now, what happened was then, when Biden came to power, his top scientific advisor was Tony Fauci. So Biden put us back into the WHO and then appointed Fauci as the U.S. representative on the Executive Committee of the WHO.

“That’s where both the IHR regulations and the WHO treaty come from: to circumvent the enormous grassroots opposition to the handling of the edicts coming out of the federal government with respect to the pandemic and the vaccine mandates.”

Boyle explained what “legally binding” would mean in this context, if either set of proposals comes to pass:

“What will happen is the WHO will come up with an order, this new organization will come up with an order that they will then send to Washington, D.C., whereupon the Biden administration will enforce it as a binding international obligation of the United States of America under Article 6 of the United States Constitution, and it will usurp the state and local health authorities, who generally have constitutional authority to deal with public health under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“The Biden administration will then argue that either the regulations or the treaty will usurp the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and state and local health authorities, governors, attorney generals, public health authorities will have to obey [any] order coming out of the WHO.”

Referring to his remarks about the illegality of the two proposals under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Boyle clarified that under Article 18 of the convention, “a treaty does not come into force when signed. When the state has signed the treaty, it is only obligated to act in a manner that does not defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.”

Article 18 states:

“A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when: (a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty.”

According to Boyle a state’s signature “does not provisionally bring the treaty into force.”

Boyle also described the proposals as “a massive power grab by Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, the biowarfare industry and Tedros.”

He added:

“I’ve never seen anything like this in any of my research, writing, teaching, litigating international organizations going back to the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899, up until today.”

Roguski and Boyle argued that the U.S. — and other countries — should exit the WHO. Boyle told The Defender:

“I’m not a supporter of President Trump, but I think we have to go back to pulling out of the WHO right away. In the last session of Congress, there was legislation introduced pulling us out of the WHO. We need that legislation reintroduced immediately, in this new session of Congress.

“I think the House of Representatives has to make it clear that they object, that there’s no way they are going to go along with any orders coming out of the WHO, the World Health Assembly [WHA] or this new international pandemic organization, and that they have the power of the purse and that they will defund anything related to the WHO.”

However, for Boyle, this is not just a matter for federal lawmakers. “We need, certainly, the state governments here in the United States to take the position that they will not comply with any decisions coming out of the WHO, the WHA or this new international pandemic organization,” adding that he recently made such recommendations to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

“We need that replicated all over the United States, on a state-by-state basis,” said Boyle, “and I think we need it right away because they’re trying to rush through these WHO regulations and the [pandemic] treaty for the WHO assembly in May.”

Close cooperation with Gates Foundation, others

According to the WHO, the INB discussions are taking place not just among all member states, but also with “relevant stakeholders” listed in document A/INB/2/4.

Who are these stakeholders? One example is GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance, listed as an “Observer” alongside the Holy See (Vatican), Palestine and the Red Cross.

As previously reported by The Defender, GAVI proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”

GAVI describes its core partnership with various international organizations, including names that are by now familiar: the WHO, UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank, and with the ID2020 Alliance, which supports the implementation of “vaccine passports.”

ID2020’s founding members include the Gates Foundation, Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation.

In turn, the Gates Foundation, alongside Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Rockefeller Foundation, the International Air Transport Association (IATA — think “vaccine passports”) and the Population Council — founded by John D. Rockefeller and known for its “population control” initiatives — are listed in the same WHO document under Annex C as “non-state actors in official relations with WHO.”

“Other stakeholders, as decided by the INB, invited to attend [and] speak at open sessions of meetings of the INB [and] provide inputs to the INB” include IATA, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the World Bank Group.

Open Philanthropy” and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and “nonprofit consumer advocacy organization” Public Citizen, are among the groups listed in the WHO document as “other stakeholders” that can “provide inputs to the INB,” alongside two Russian state-affiliated health organizations.

Lead U.S. negotiator for the pandemic treaty, Pamela Hamamoto — previously an investment banker with Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch — “helped coordinate early responses to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2015 … and a strengthened WHO response.”

Hamamoto also was “instrumental in the 2014 launch of the Global Health Security Agenda” (GHSA), a “global effort … focused on strengthening the world’s ability to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats,” spearheaded by the CDC and founded with the purpose of accelerating the IHR passed in 2005.

The World Bank, the Global Health Security Consortium, the Private Sector Roundtable and the WHO are part of the GHSA’s steering groupAstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines, are members of the Private Sector Roundtable.

Advising the GHSA is the “GHSA Consortium,” which includes within its steering committee the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (which hosted Event 201) and the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI).

As previously reported by The Defender, the NTI organized a “tabletop exercise” that predicted a “fictional” May 2022 monkeypox outbreak with remarkable accuracy. “Open Philanthropy” funded the final report for this exercise.

General members of the GHSA Consortium include the Gates Foundation, Amazon Web Services (which maintained COVID-19 immunization databases for the CDC), Boston University and the institution’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL), and Emergent BioSolutions.

As previously reported by The Defender, NEIDL is where “a new strain of COVID-19 that killed 80% of the mice infected with the virus” was recently developed.

Emergent BioSolutions, which produced the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and attained infamy for losing a $600 million federal contract after millions of vaccine doses were ruined, is connected to the 2001 Dark Winter anthrax simulation.

In June 2022, with the support of the U.S., Italy (current chair of the GHSA) and then-G20 president Indonesia, the World Bank announced the launch of a $1 billion “pandemic fund.”

In November 2022, Indonesian Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin, at the G20 meeting held in Bali, pushed for an international “digital health certificate acknowledged by the WHO” to enable the public to “move around.” Indonesia is also a permanent member of the GHSA’s steering group.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

During Remarks at World Economic Forum FBI Director Chris Wray Talks About Success in Combatting Pre Criminal Activity

January 19, 2023 | Sundance

Lots of people are talking about U.S. FBI Director Christopher Wray discussing the agencies “partnership with the private sector” as it relates to modern FBI activity.  However, I’m just that random oddball in the crowd who just wants to point out something, well, kind of a big picture issue.

I notice in all of the discussions surrounding the FBI activity, and there are a lot of discussions – including admissions and outlines from the FBI itself, there appears to be an element of the subject matter being overlooked.  Here’s a segment from Wray at the World Economic Forum {Direct Rumble Link} as a precursor to what few are noticing.  WATCH:

FBI Director Christopher Wray: “The level of collaboration between the private sector and the government, especially the FBI has made significant strides.”

The FBI is a criminal investigative agency. Meaning, a crime is committed, and the FBI mission is to investigate it, solve it, and bring the information to the justice department for pursuit. At least that was the customary role of the FBI as it was/is commonly discussed.

However, please note that in Director Wray’s remarks, every element of the FBI mission is framed around “prevention” of criminal activity, or what we would call pre-crimes.

Stop for a moment and rewatch it if needed, you’ll see what I am talking about.

Um, please excuse my interruption.

While it might seem like an unusual thing to notice, this is not a small issue.

In the era following the 9-11 attacks, there was public outcry around the issue of “how” and “why” did law enforcement, specifically the FBI, not PREVENT the attack.  In just about every conversation following the attack every framework was about how to prevent an attack.

The 9-11 commission itself was focused on learning lessons from the attack; thereby the direct and implicit message was to construct systems to prevent another attack from happening.  Essentially to move the FBI from a reactive footing in the aftermath of a crime, to a proactive footing to prevent crime.

Now, what I am asking readers to do is to realize when the fundamental mission of an investigative agency changes from investigating the aftermath of criminal activity, to the prevention of criminal activity, we as a society open ourselves up to having severe restrictions on our liberty.  After all, just about everything that we now see as an infringement on freedom, is some form of a proactive action by government.

Change the mission from the investigation of crime to the prevention of crime, and the entire apparatus of the mission fundamentally changes.

Criminals are no longer the target when you are preventing crimes.  Criminals are only targets in the aftermath of crime.  When you are preventing crime, everyone that could commit a crime is the new mission target.  Everyone, regardless of their connection to – or association with – criminal activity, is now a potential criminal.   Potential criminals must be monitored.

Potential criminals are now the target.  You are a potential criminal.  As a result of your potential ability, you are a target for pre-crime investigation.  Within the process of pre-crime investigation, your archaic views of freedom and liberty are dispatched.

The office of the Director of National Intelligence was created to turn the terrorist radar internally.  Every American is now a potential “domestic terrorist.”  Thus, you see FBI Director Christopher Wray sitting on a stage and openly admitting the FBI partnerships with the private sector are key to the mission; a mission of pre-crime targeting.

Can you see how this rolls along?…

As soon as the FBI changes from investigating the aftermath of a crime committed to intercepting the potential criminal conduct, things get very opaque, sketchy and weird.  When the FBI is investigating crimes, you have rights.  When the FBI is preventing crimes, those rights are impediments.

Our entire legal system is structured around criminal accountability.  An event takes place, and we hold the criminal accountable.  Judges, lawyers, courts, systems, processes, protections, rights of the accused, fourth amendment, fifth amendment, etc. etc.  Hundreds of years of rules and regulations within a criminal justice system.

We do not have a “pre-crime” justice system.

The current FBI mission is pre-crime enforcement.

Think about the ramifications; it shouldn’t be hard, because we are living them.

I will sit down now….

Global WHO Treaty Is Real And Will Control You



When Issues in the Church Divide Us

Rhyne Putman
January 11, 2023

I recently met with an interdenominational group of missionaries and pastors who serve the persecuted church. They told me incredible stories about the way God was calling people to faith in a place where the evangelical church is only a few decades old. But they also spoke about doctrinal controversies which often hinder their work. This young church wrestles with many of the same doctrinal differences we have in the West—conflicting views on church leadership, salvation, and spiritual gifts. But they also differ about how to address the challenges which are unique to their persecuted context. They are learning how to practice gospel cooperation in an environment hostile to the faith.

On this side of heaven, theological disagreement is part of life. The apostles who wrote the New Testament settled such disputes in the first century. Today, we have a clear word from God preserved in Scripture but no magisterium to settle our disagreements over how to interpret it. Even when we share common convictions about the gospel and the authority of Scripture, we still argue about its meaning and how we should apply it to the unique challenges we face in our cultural context. Because doctrinal disagreement is inevitable, we must find healthy and God-honoring ways to deal with our conflicts.

  1. We can embrace disagreements and reject divisiveness.

Twentieth-century ecumenical movements encouraged Christian traditions to minimize the doctrinal differences between them. Consequently, many of the churches that came out of that movement hardly resemble biblical orthodoxy today. While we can celebrate unity in the gospel, we must reject the relativistic spirit of our age that says truth isn’t important. Biblical interpretation matters. Our convictions matter. Healthy theological disagreements can spur us on to a deeper and better understanding of God’s word, so we should be reluctant to avoid or ignore the theological differences between us.

But disagreements between the people of God should not, as they often do, become sources of contention. Such behavior is as destructive to the church as false teaching and heresy. Paul puts “rivalries,” “dissensions,” and “divisions” in the same category of “works of the flesh” such as “sexual immorality,” “idolatry,” “sorcery,” and “orgies” (Gal. 5:19–21). This is serious sin. Paul ranks divisiveness in the church up there with sins like orgy participation and idol worship!

  1. We must assess our motives before engaging in debate.

Some people have “an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction” (1 Tim. 6:4–5). Paul warns about dissenters who imagine “godliness is a means of gain” (1 Tim. 3:5). In the twenty-first century, we just call this kind of pot-stirring “platform building.” Nothing is more satanic than planting seeds of discord to build your own brand.

Others enter disagreements with godly motives, like the desire to build up the body of Christ, to grow in our own understanding, or to offer loving correction to brothers and sisters in Christ. The inspiration of Scripture makes it profitable for these very purposes (2 Tim. 3:16). Doctrinal debates can also prevent the spread of false and destructive teaching. Paul and Barnabas “had no small dissension and debate” with teachers in the church who changed the gospel and insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation in Christ (Acts 15:2).

  1. We must pray before, while, and after engaging in doctrinal debates.

Discussions about doctrinal disagreement are not speculative or purely academic matters. These are spiritual conversations which are sometimes met with real spiritual warfare. We don’t “wrestle against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:12). While we are usually mindful of this dimension when we evangelize or preach, we sometimes forget about this aspect of theological discourse. Paul’s instruction about putting on the whole armor of God is relevant for our discussions, particularly his instruction about “praying at all times in the Spirit” and “making supplication for all the saints” (Eph. 6:19). Praying for—and if possible, praying with—our conversation partners will stir our affections toward them, no matter how serious the conflict may be. Spirit-filled prayer in our theological discussions can keep our responses out of the flesh and our focus on the glory of God and building up the body of Christ.

  1. Speak reasonably and charitably. Don’t be timid or patronizing.

When Paul defended the faith before Festus and Agrippa in Acts 26:1–32, he did not succumb to the mirroring temptations of cowardly compromise or ungracious triumphalism. Instead, he made every effort to speak truthfully and reasonably with his challenger (Acts 26:25). He spoke boldly in the power of the Spirit, not in his own flesh. He appealed to the reason and good sense he perceived in Agrippa, even if the king was not yet a believer in Jesus: “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe” (Acts 26:27). Agrippa, somewhat stunned by Paul’s appeal and gracious demeanor, asked, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28). Paul knew that a gracious and reasonable defense would be more persuasive than mean-spirited and impassionate rhetoric.

If we are truly under the authority of Scripture, we must practice humility and teachableness.

  1. Offer gentle and loving correction when necessary.

Priscilla and Aquila model gentle correction well for us in Acts 18:24–28. Luke begins this incident by introducing us to Apollos, who is described with a string of superlatives: he was “eloquent,” “competent in the Scriptures,” “instructed in the way of the Lord,” “fervent in spirit,” accurate in his speech about Jesus, and bold in his proclamation. Yet despite all these accolades, something Apollos said in his preaching needed correction. But note what Priscilla and Aquila didn’t do. They didn’t publicly embarrass Apollos. They didn’t write an epistle to another group of Christians about Apollos. Instead, “they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). This faithful couple did not seek to build their own reputation. They engaged him privately so that he would be more effective in ministry.

  1. We must handle constructive criticism and correction well.

Unless we are attributing to ourselves the divine perfections that belong only to God, we can acknowledge that none of us are all-knowing or all-wise. We can and sometimes should be corrected. Growth in our knowledge and understanding of biblical and doctrinal truth is part of our sanctification. Wisdom literature has much to say about loving correction and how we receive it: “Whoever ignores instruction despises himself, but he who listens to reproof gains intelligence” (Prov. 15:32).

Fools hate correction, but wise men love the understanding it brings (Prov. 9:7–9). But as a mentor once told me, we must choose the critics we listen to carefully. Not every angry voice out there vying for attention demands a careful hearing. Do not let critics who do not speak reasonably, charitably, or with biblical authority get into your head. But when someone who has earned your trust or who speaks faithfully from Scripture offering gentle correction or rebuke, listen carefully, for “faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Prov. 27:6a).

  1. We should know when to take the conversation elsewhere.

Though much of what I have said here directly relates to online engagement, I would plea that believers move some of these conversations offline completely. Online engagement can be dehumanizing, because we often forget fellow image-bearers are more than their avatars and tweets. But there is another reason why we should consider unplugging. We don’t have to air all our dirty laundry and in-house quarrels before a cynical and unbelieving audience. Long before the dawn of the glowing screen, the fourth-century theologian Gregory of Nazianzus insisted not every theological spat is fit for public consumption: “If we cannot resolve our disputes outright, let us at least make this mutual concession, to utter spiritual truths with the restraint due to them, to discuss holy things in a holy manner, and not to broadcast to a profane hearing what is not to be divulged” (Oration 27.5).

  1. Our theological conversations should be characterized by the fruit of the Spirit.

Divisiveness belongs to the works of the flesh. Believers who walk by the Spirit must address their doctrinal differences in the fruit of the Spirit. We who belong to Jesus have crucified the flesh and its desires for glory, fame, and tribalism. We should be known for our “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, [and] self-control” (Gal. 5:22–23). We must ask ourselves whether we embody this fruit in the tenor of our debates. Are we patient toward one another? Are we gentle in correction? Are we kind or do we stoop to insults and name-calling?

If we are truly under the authority of Scripture, we must practice humility and teachableness. We must recognize that not every point of difference between us is a matter worthy of breaking fellowship. We must let reason—not emotion—control the way we think through our differences. And we must recognize that what we have in common in the gospel and the Great Commission is much greater than the things that divide us.

Content adapted from When Doctrine Divides the People of God by Rhyne Putman. This article first appeared on; used with permission.

I Will Send the Comforter

By G.W.

Assembling thoughts into words, 

I have adapted and edited a portion of a subject from one of my journals.

There are components of various types of solitude with multiple goals.

It’s amazing, and sometimes frightening, the things we can learn from solitude.


Solitude doesn’t mean being alone. For we are not alone.

On the contrary, isolation means restricting the world from my circle of influence,

and inviting Christ in as my sole source of power and attention.

The above is also the meaning of Christian meditation.

Solitude with God means lengthy meditation in Christ’s presence as He guides me.

Note of clarification:

The Holy Spirit of God is my only Spirit Guide and the only correct spirit guide. All that is true emanates from Him alone as He passes on all He hears from God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. [John 16: 12-15]



An insightful authorHenri Nouwen, called solitude the “furnace of transformation.” This doesn’t refer to personal privacy for a short pit stop where we get a quick fix to reenter the race.

It’s more than that. It’s lengthier, concentrated, and at times frightening. It’s when God isolates us. Corrals us with no escape and seriously looks directly into the eyes of our hearts [“You hem me in…” (protection) Psalm 139].


It’s a necessary oasis of the soul of where we see ourselves, others, and God in new ways. But, unfortunately, it’s where much of the “clutter” of our life becomes identified. And defeated, thanks to the relentless heat of the “furnace.”

Here, something occurs, secret and unknown before. Soul surgery transpires as serenity replaces anxiety by resolving many inner struggles. Our minds may wander, but not for long before God redirects us back to the subject.

In solitude, struggles occur that no one else knows about us. Here, we fight inner battles that rarely become subjects for sermons or illustrations for blogs. God, who probes our deepest thoughts during sustained segments of solitude, opens our eyes to things that need attention. He makes us aware of those things we try to hide from others. Those collected remnants of fiery darts the Prince of Evil in the spiritual realm fired into our souls and lodged. Now is when delayed surgery becomes extensive and extended by the Lover of our Souls. At times, a painful surgical procedure of excision but necessary and well worth it.

[G.W. – Edited from my Journal]

“Prayer is an end to isolation. It is living our daily life with someone; with Him who alone can deliver us from solitude.” — Georges Lefevre

As with the Dark Night of the Soul, not all Christians have experienced this type of solitude. Others are well versed in it. It is all in God’s hands: who, what, where, when, and how.


“For God alone, my soul waits in silence and quietly submits to Him; my hope is in Him.” Psalm 62:5 AMP

“Search me, O, God, and know my heart;
    test me and know my anxious thoughts.” Psalm 139:23


Epilogue: Also, from my Journal. 

When God reveals Himself in new ways, I must bear witness to His faithfulness when we seek Him with all we are, eschewing all fear. Although, at times I sense I’m to keep it and ponder it in my heart.

On a personal level living in the “furnace” of solitude, I developed an ongoing conversation with the Lord as a habit throughout most days,

from my morning greeting to my prayers before retiring to night’s sleep.

I talk with Him about everything I do, think, read, imagine, and experience.

Naturally, prayer becomes interspersed within such a conversation. However, realistically, every conversation is prayer.

I ask his direction in making decisions and ask His guidance often even in the minutiae of the day.

Usually, this includes minor detail, such as when I ponder whether to do a thing now or later.

It has become a habit that I find makes each day a smoother path.

His every answer comes in unique ways of communicating. Have I ever misread Him? Of course. But He never misreads me when He corrects my course.

I’m a witness to His actions with my eyes and experience. I’m a witness. Thank you, Lord Jesus! You are alive!

The Lord continues to amaze me on so many personal levels.


There is another segment of solitude with God I call “Solitude with God amid the Crowd.” I may develop that for a future post. ~ G.W.


VIDEO Iranians Meet Jesus in Dreams, Experience Radical Transformation: ‘I Saw a Vision of a Man With a White Robe’

01-19-2023 Tré Goins-Phillips

The founder of a ministry devoted to serving the Iranian underground church said many people in the restrictive nation have encountered Jesus through dreams and visions — a phenomenon that’s potentially foreign to Western cultures.

The Rev. Lazarus Yeghnazar, founder of Transform Iran, an organization preaching the Gospel to Iran and planting churches, told CBN’s Faithwire many Iranians find themselves enraptured by Christ following these apparitions.

“They cannot stop talking about it. Hence the severe persecution, the severity of the brutality,” Yeghnazar said of the persecution many Iranian Christians face. “[Believers will say], ‘I saw a vision of a man with a white robe, with a cross on his shoulder or on his heart, and he says, ‘I’m Jesus.’”

Watch Yeghnazar discuss these purported visions:

While many believers in the West might meet Jesus as the result of others sharing the Gospel, dreams and visions are sometimes the touchpoints in Iran that spark life-change and heart transformation.

Yeghnazar pointed to Scripture to show how God has used visions to communicate with humanity in the past and explained why Iranians might be having this spiritual experience today.

“In the Middle East, people see visions,” he said. “In the Western understanding, we want everything to be tangible, verifiable, accountable.”

But he said the dynamic is quite different in the Middle East, where these experiences deeply resonate with those who have them.

“In Iran, people see a vision — they will wake up sweating and shaking,” Yeghnazar said.

He also noted the many times the Lord spoke to prominent biblical figures through dreams, delivering life-altering and essential messages.

“You know, paving that way from Abraham to Moses, to Daniel, to Joseph, to Mary, the mother of Christ … all of them see dreams,” Yeghnazar said. “Peter, in the beginning of his ministry, started seeing dreams.”

The minister said people might be surprised to see the juxtaposition regarding the prevalence of God speaking through dreams for Westerners versus those in the Middle East.

“Any gathering of Iranians or Afghan Christians, if you say, ‘How many have seen dreams that have been touched, if not radically, transformed because of a vision?’ [and] 90% will raise their hands,” he said. “If you ask a church in Wisconsin, or in Maryland, or Boston, ‘How many people have come to Christ through a dream?’ they would say, ‘What is a dream?’”

Watch for the full discussion.

%d bloggers like this: