John sets up the first test of assurance that we are walking with Jesus–obedience.

At the heart of the pro-life movement is the deep-seated conviction that from the moment of conception, an unborn child is a separate human life. Although the baby is completely dependent on the mother, it is still a separate human life. The baby’s life is not more important than the mother’s—which is why the best-drafted pro-life laws protect the life and physical health of the mother—but it possesses incalculable worth nonetheless. “Absent extreme circumstances, the unborn child must not be intentionally killed. And while pro-life Americans can disagree about how to protect unborn children—whether it’s primarily through legal restrictions, primarily through measures meant to reduce the demand for abortion, or primarily through a combination of abortion restrictions or financial assistance to mothers and families—there has long been agreement on that one core claim: From the moment of conception, an unborn child is a person worth protecting.”

Our fellowship with God is affected by our sin and John gives three truths about how we deal with sin in our lives to facilitate that fellowship.

Concern, even anxiety, about the upcoming generation is a given in American history. For example, in 1935, George Leighton and Richard Hellman in Harper’s lamented the apathy, disenchantment and criminality of high school students in America. In 1982, Neil Postman published The Disappearance of Childhood in which he argued that teens were adopting adult vices (e.g., heavy drinking, crime and sexual immorality). He blamed television. In that same spirit of concern and anxiety, a new book by Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing An Epidemic of Mental Illness, gives focus to smartphones and social media.

Introducing the letter with an overview, and then examining how John presents Jesus as the incarnate God in the first four verses.

There seems to be a broad consensus within the United States about the war in Gaza, structured around two propositions. First, after the attacks of Oct. 7, Israel has the right to defend itself and defeat Hamas. Second, the way Israel is doing this is “over the top,” in President Biden’s words. The vast numbers of dead and starving children are gut wrenching, the devastation is overwhelming, and it’s hard not to see it all as indiscriminate. Which leads to an obvious question: If the current Israeli military approach is inhumane, what’s the alternative? Is there a better military strategy Israel can use to defeat Hamas without a civilian blood bath? As we approach answering these questions, I want to place these wrenching questions into an important context.

In defiant pride and energized by Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1), David orders a census for military purposes which results in God’s discipline but also leads him to purchase land for the Temple on Mt. Moriah.

Opponents of U.S. aid to Ukraine claim the country persecutes Christians. “When American leaders frame this as a war for democracy and human rights, it would be good if the recipient of the aid was a little bit more careful of human rights, including religious liberties,” Sen. J.D. Vance said in an interview in mid-March. Ukraine “is doing some pretty bad stuff,” he adds, citing “news reports of priests being investigated, church assets being seized and priests being arrested.” Ukrainians have “invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests,” according to Sen. Rand Paul. Rep. Paul Gosar says Kyiv has “banned Ukraine’s oldest and largest denomination, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

These chapters are an epilogue to the book, covering David’s just response to the Gibeonites, neutralizing the Philistines and his praise hymn to God who gave him victory in battling Israel’s enemies.

Two years of full-scale war in Ukraine have reshaped the military alliance called NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization): Finland and Sweden have now joined, an unintended consequence, as afar as Vladimir Putin was concerned, of his brutal aggression against Ukraine. It is probably correct to argue that NATO is now more united than it has been since the fall of the USSR in the 1990s. NATO announced this month that two-thirds of the alliance’s members have met the goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. That is a marked increase from a decade ago. But, at the same time, former President Donald J. Trump, the likely Republican candidate, said this month that he was willing to let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” against NATO allies that do not fulfill their commitments on military spending.