Monthly Archives: June 2019

June 30 Consistent Faith

Scripture Reading: Colossians 2:1–7

Key Verses: Colossians 2:6–7

As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.

Having consistent faith is one area we all struggle in somtimes. We have faith in Jesus, but we often wrestle with our inability to walk consistently in faith.

So, as we examine Colossians 2:6–7, let’s determine what walking by faith means. Keeping in mind that our “walk” represents our behavior as a Christian, what can we gather from the apostle Paul’s teaching in this passage? He explained that, just as we received Christ by faith, we must also walk in Him. In other words, the believer should give Christ lordship over his or her life.

You can confidently submit to His lordship for two reasons:

  • For who He is. Psalm 9:10 says that those who know God’s name will put their trust in Him, because He will not forsake those who seek Him. Oftentimes, nonbelievers are hesitant to trust Jesus because they do not know Him. But when a person steps out in faith, His magnificent character will be revealed.
  • For what He has done. When Jesus died on the cross, He paid the price and made us complete in Him. Never will we have to struggle to meet our own needs, because He is our ultimate provider. His love for you is beyond measure.

Will you walk with Him in faith? Will you trust Him to be true to His Word?

Lord, I want to be consistent in my faith. Help me to submit to Your lordship, remembering always the wonder of Your greatness and Your sacrifice for me.[1]


[1] Stanley, C. F. (2006). Pathways to his presence (p. 189). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

June 30 His Plans Are Unfolding

Scripture Reading: Genesis 39

Key Verse: Genesis 45:8

It was not you who sent me here, but God; and He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.

Although brokenness is a process, we can unnecessarily extend the time frame. We prolong God’s redemptive, constructive purposes when we fail to see God’s hand in our adverse circumstances.

Joseph tasted the bitter fruits of unjust slavery and imprisonment for thirteen years before God elevated him to Pharaoh’s administrator. Confronting his brothers who had mistreated him, Joseph said, “Do not be grieved or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life … Now, therefore, it was not you who sent me here, but God” (Gen. 45:5, 8 nasb).

Do you see God in everything, understanding that He either sends or permits all circumstances, good and evil? If He is not Lord of all, then He cannot be Lord at all. He is the Sovereign of the universe. Joseph was able to see God’s hand in his brokenness.

God is working all things for good in your shattered circumstances. He knows the heartache you face, and He will comfort your deepest pain.

His plans are unfolding, even in the darkness of your adversity. See God behind it, and you will have His light to see you through your troubles.

Precious heavenly Father, this road I travel is not always easy. Help me understand that Your plans are unfolding, even in the darkness of adversity. Let Your Word and Your love penetrate the shadows and light my way.[1]


[1] Stanley, C. F. (1999). On holy ground (p. 189). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Free Press? NY Times Admits It Sends Stories To US Government For Approval Before Publication

Authored by Ben Norton via The Grayzone Project,

The New York Times casually acknowledged that it sends major scoops to the US government before publication, to make sure “national security officials” have “no concerns.”

The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for approval from “national security officials” before publication.

This confirms what veteran New York Times correspondents like James Risen have said:

The American newspaper of record regularly collaborates with the US government, suppressing reporting that top officials don’t want made public.

On June 15, the Times reported that the US government is escalating its cyber attacks on Russia’s power grid. According to the article, “the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively,” as part of a larger “digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow.”

In response to the report, Donald Trump attacked the Times on Twitter, calling the article “a virtual act of Treason.”

The New York Times PR office replied to Trump from its official Twitter account, defending the story and noting that it had, in fact, been cleared with the US government before being printed.

“Accusing the press of treason is dangerous,” the Times communications team said.

“We described the article to the government before publication.”

“As our story notes, President Trump’s own national security officials said there were no concerns,” the Times added.

Accusing the press of treason is dangerous.
We described the article to the government before publication. As our story notes, President Trump’s own national security officials said there were no concerns. https://t.co/MU020hxwdc pic.twitter.com/4CIfcqKoEl

— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) June 16, 2019

Indeed, the Times report on the escalating American cyber attacks against Russia is attributed to “current and former [US] government officials.” The scoop in fact came from these apparatchiks, not from a leak or the dogged investigation of an intrepid reporter.

‘Real’ journalists get approval from ‘national security’ officials

The neoliberal self-declared “Resistance” jumped on Trump’s reckless accusation of treason (the Democratic Coalition, which boasts, “We help run #TheResistance,” responded by calling Trump “Putin’s puppet”). The rest of the corporate media went wild.

But what was entirely overlooked was the most revealing thing in the New York Times’ statement: The newspaper of record was essentially admitting that it has a symbiotic relationship with the US government.

In fact, some prominent American pundits have gone so far as to insist that this symbiotic relationship is precisely what makes someone a journalist.

In May, neoconservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen — a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush — declared that WikiLeaks publisher and political prisoner Julian Assange is “not a journalist”; rather, he is a “spy” who “deserves prison.” (Thiessen also once called Assange “the devil.”)

What was the Post columnist’s rationale for revoking Assange’s journalistic credentials?

Unlike “reputable news organizations, Assange did not give the US government an opportunity to review the classified information WikiLeaks was planning to release so they could raise national security objections,” Thiessen wrote. “So responsible journalists have nothing to fear.”

In other words, this former US government speechwriter turned corporate media pundit insists that collaborating with the government, and censoring your reporting to protect so-called “national security,” is definitionally what makes you a journalist.

This is the express ideology of the American commentariat.

Julian Assange is no hero. He is the devil. https://t.co/LCXdRlTLKG

— Marc Thiessen (@marcthiessen) October 24, 2016

NY Times editors ‘quite willing to cooperate with the government’

The symbiotic relationship between the US corporate media and the government has been known for some time. American intelligence agencies play the press like a musical instrument, using it it to selectively leak information at opportune moments to push US soft power and advance Washington’s interests.

But rarely is this symbiotic relationship so casually and publicly acknowledged.

In 2018, former New York Times reporter James Risen published a 15,000-word article in The Intercept providing further insight into how this unspoken alliance operates.

1. #JamesRisen: “A top CIA official once told me that his rule of thumb for whether a covert operation should be approved was, “How will this look on the front page of the New York Times?” https://t.co/YIUtpTthe8

— stefania maurizi (@SMaurizi) May 8, 2018

Risen detailed how his editors had been “quite willing to cooperate with the government.” In fact, a top CIA official even told Risen that his rule of thumb for approving a covert operation was, “How will this look on the front page of the New York Times?”

There is an “informal arrangement” between the state and the press, Risen explained, where US government officials “regularly engaged in quiet negotiations with the press to try to stop the publication of sensitive national security stories.”

“At the time, I usually went along with these negotiations,” the former New York Times reported said. He recalled an example of a story he was writing on Afghanistan just prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Then-CIA Director George Tenet called Risen personally and asked him to kill the story.

“He told me the disclosure would threaten the safety of the CIA officers in Afghanistan,” Risen said. “I agreed.”

Risen said he later questioned whether or not this was the right decision. “If I had reported the story before 9/11, the CIA would have been angry, but it might have led to a public debate about whether the United States was doing enough to capture or kill bin Laden,” he wrote. “That public debate might have forced the CIA to take the effort to get bin Laden more seriously.”

This dilemma led Risen to reconsider responding to US government requests to censor stories. “And that ultimately set me on a collision course with the editors at the New York Times,” he said.

“After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration began asking the press to kill stories more frequently,” Risen continued. “They did it so often that I became convinced the administration was invoking national security to quash stories that were merely politically embarrassing.”

One year ago: Former New York Times national security reporter James Risen reveals how the paper repeatedly suppressed stories at the request of the Obama and Bush administrations https://t.co/pJ2BAPluqH

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) January 3, 2019

In the lead-up to the Iraq War, Risen frequently “clashed” with Times editors because he raised questions about the US government’s lies. But his stories “stories raising questions about the intelligence, particularly the administration’s claims of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, were being cut, buried, or held out of the paper altogether.”

The Times’ executive editor Howell Raines “was believed by many at the paper to prefer stories that supported the case for war,” Risen said.

In another anecdote, the former Times journalist recalled a scoop he had uncovered on a botched CIA plot. The Bush administration got wind of it and called him to the White House, where then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice ordered the Times to bury the story.

Risen said Rice told him “to forget about the story, destroy my notes, and never make another phone call to discuss the matter with anyone.”

“The Bush administration was successfully convincing the press to hold or kill national security stories,” Risen wrote. And the Barack Obama administration subsequently accelerated the “war on the press.”

CIA media infiltration and manufacturing consent

In their renowned study of US media, “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Chomsky articulated a “propaganda model,” showing how “the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them,” through “the selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors’ and working journalists’ internalization of priorities and definitions of newsworthiness that conform to the institution’s policy.”

But in some cases, the relationship between US intelligence agencies and the corporate media is not just one of mere ideological policing, indirect pressure, or friendship, but rather one of employment.

In the 1950s, the CIA launched a covert operation called Project Mockingbird, in which it surveilled, influenced, and manipulated American journalists and media coverage, explicitly in order to direct public opinion against the Soviet Union, China, and the growing international communist movement.

Legendary journalist Carl Bernstein, a former Washington Post reporter who helped uncover the Watergate scandal, published a major cover story for Rolling Stone in 1977 titled The CIA and the Media: How America’s Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up.”

Bernstein obtained CIA documents that revealed that more than 400 American journalists in the previous 25 years had “secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Bernstein wrote:

Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries.

Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country.

Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

Virtually all major US media outlets cooperated with the CIA, Bernstein revealed, including ABC, NBC, the AP, UPI, Reuters, Newsweek, Hearst newspapers, the Miami Herald, the Saturday Evening Post, and the New York Herald‑Tribune.

However, he added, “By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.”

These layers of state manipulation, censorship, and even direct crafting of the news media show that, as much as they claim to be independent, The New York Times and other outlets effectively serve as de facto spokespeople for the government — or at least for the US national security state.

Source: Free Press? NY Times Admits It Sends Stories To US Government For Approval Before Publication

Parking lot? Looks so much like a detention centre, or so AOC thought | RT

Clutching her face in despair and weeping, photos of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seemingly show her strong reaction to a horrific scene of US migrant detention. However, new angles reveal she may have played things up a bit. READ MORE: https://on.rt.com/9x4l RT LIVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFAcqaNzNSc Check out http://rt.com Subscribe to RT!

Backup plan launched to ‘force people of faith to abandon beliefs’ | WND

Democrats in Congress already have staged a massive campaign to promote their Equality Act, which would impose the LGBT agenda on churches and faith-based organizations.

But now they’re working on a backup plan should the aggressive Equality Act fail.

It’s named the Do No Harm Act, but it would destroy protections for the exercise of religion by changing the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The bill would make the exercise of religion in public life subservient to LGBT rights in all cases.

The RFRA has helped protect religious freedom since it was enacted in 1993.

The law was cited when a Texas town arbitrarily tripled water connection fees for churches to make up for “lost” property taxes.

The RFRA has enabled citizens to use their constitutionally protected religious faith as a defense against unwarranted demands, including those of LGBT activists.

Doctors have used it to decline to do abortions. Pharmacists have, under its protections, declined to provide abortion-causing drugs.

It has been used to protect a Christian foster care program in South Carolina that provides homes for hundreds of kids. The Barack Obama administration threatened to shut down the program if it didn’t adhere to a “nondiscrimination,” pro-LGBT policy.

Democrats believe they can reverse the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision if the RFRA is changed. The ruling protected a Christian baker from being forced to violate his religious beliefs by creating a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Now come Democrats with their H.R. 1450.

While it claims to be the Do No Harm Act, it would allow LGBT activists to impose their religious “views, habits, or practices” on Christians or people of other faiths.

It would prevent using the RFRA to protect a citizen’s religious liberty if the action imposes “dignitary harm” or an insult “on a third party.”

It would modify the RFRA simply to say its provisions do “not apply” in such disputes.

And it states that “sexual orientation or gender identity” protections trump constitutional protections for religious freedom.

Faith-based morals also could not be used to deny “a person the full and equal enjoyment of a good, service, benefit, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation.”

Courthouse News reported this week the House will hold a hearing on the bill.

The report explained it condemns “those who wield their faiths to hurt others,” according to a civil-rights lawyer.

Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State claimed the Trump administration is “weaponizing” the law to “undermine civil rights protections.”

She said it harms “women, people of no religion, the LGBT community and religious minorities.”

She condemned RFRA because it allowed the South Carolina foster agency to operate according to its faith, which she said is unacceptable.

Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., had a different perspective.

“This isn’t about forcing religious beliefs; this is about forcing people of faith to abandon their beliefs.”

An obstetrician, he asked: “Will I be forced to perform something I believe is wrong? Will I be forced to perform an abortion?”

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., explained that the Constitution doesn’t confine religion to houses of worship.

“I understand that I am a Christian first and a congressman second. My faith is not divorced from my life. And I would expect everyone else who has a similar belief, that they, in this country, should be free, whether they’re Judeo-Christian or not,” he said.

Source: Backup plan launched to ‘force people of faith to abandon beliefs’

WATCH: Three Born-Again Christian Jews Say That Andy Stanley’s False Preaching in Book “Irresistible” is Tragic, Borderline Anti-Semitic, and Textbook for Replacement Theology — BCNN1 – Black Christian News Network

(from left to right) Ryan Lambert, Toby Janicki, Damian Eisner, and Andy Stanley

You will be shocked as you watch our 45-minute review of Andy Stanley’s new book, Irresistible. Stanley is one of the most influential Christian leaders in our day. Just watch the first five minutes to see the most aggressive dismantling of the Bible and articulate example of supersessionism (replacement theology) in our day. If the first five minutes of the video alarms you—keep watching and consider the solutions we offer.

Daniel Whyte III says, “Here are three very kind and respectful Christian Jewish men who rebuke and condemn and dismantle the false preaching of Andy Stanley and the false teaching in “Irresistible” written by Andy Stanley that is doing great harm and causing great confusion in the Church.”

via WATCH: Three Born-Again Christian Jews Say That Andy Stanley’s False Preaching in Book “Irresistible” is Tragic, Borderline Anti-Semitic, and Textbook for Replacement Theology — BCNN1 – Black Christian News Network

Putin says liberalism is ‘eating itself,’ criticizes migrant influx | New York Post

OSAKA, Japan — Russian President Vladimir Putin fired a new broadside against Western liberalism at the Group of 20 summit in Japan, saying that policies such as welcoming migrants have hurt people’s interests.

Speaking after the summit in Osaka concluded on Saturday, Putin charged that Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 US presidential election and a drop of popularity of traditional parties in Europe have been rooted in growing public dismay with mainstream liberal policies.

He said Trump’s election victory was driven by growing disenchantment with liberal policies.

“The liberal idea has started eating itself,” Putin said at a news conference. “Millions of people live their lives, and those who propagate those ideas are separate from them.”

He also charged that the influx of migrants to Europe has infringed on people’s rights. “People live in their own country, according to their own traditions, why should it happen to them?” Putin said.

The Russian leader added that while “liberal ideas remain attractive as a whole,” election results show that people want change.

Putin hailed his meeting with Trump on Friday on the sidelines of the G-20 summit as “business-like and pragmatic.”

“We addressed almost the entire list of issues of mutual concern,” he said. “Of course, we talked about the situation in various parts of the world. Overall, these consultations were useful.”

He said the claims of Russian meddling in the US election were part of the agenda of his talk with Trump.

At the start of Friday’s meeting, the Russian leader laughed when a reporter shouted about Trump warning Putin “not to meddle” in the 2020 presidential election.

Asked Saturday whether the issue was discussed during the meeting, Putin said that “we talked about it,” but didn’t elaborate.

He said he believes it’s necessary to “turn the page” in relations with the US, which have plunged to the lowest level since the Cold War era.

Source: Putin says liberalism is ‘eating itself,’ criticizes migrant influx

Here’s exactly how to get the cheapest life insurance policy online | Business Insider

Life insurance isn’t something you should put off.

It’s an ideal time to get life insurance if you’re newly married, earning a high salary, or starting a family. If anyone relies on your income for their financial well-being, whether a spouse, children, aging parents, or anyone else, you probably need life insurance. Plus, usually the younger you are, the better the rate you lock in on a fixed-rate policy.

Life insurance policies come in many different varieties, though, and navigating the fine print to find the right one for you can be intimidating. You also want to make sure you’re getting the best deal, money-wise. For most people, experts recommend term life insurance because it’s cheap and simple.

“You purchase a policy for a set term — usually 10 to 30 years — and during that term you pay premiums to keep your coverage active,” explained Logan Sachon, an insurance editor at insurance-comparison site Policygenius. “If you die during the term, your beneficiaries receive a death benefit. If you don’t die during the term — the preferred outcome — your coverage ends when your term expires and you don’t get any money back.”

How much you pay depends on how much coverage you want, the type of policy you get, and how much risk you pose. The average person can expect to pay between $300 to $400 a year for life insurance, according to Policygenius, but it really depends on your situation.

How to get cheap life insurance

If you’re signed up for group life insurance through work, you only need to supplement that amount with an individual policy. Many companies offer life insurance coverage for employees, but it’s usually a multiple of annual salary and not enough to replace income for a family. The policy is often free and the money is guaranteed, so it’s typically worth taking.

Some employers offer supplemental life insurance to make up the difference, but it’s smart to compare rates for additional coverage through a third-party broker.

Below, we’ll take you through a rate comparison and application process on Policygenius:

Source: Here’s exactly how to get the cheapest life insurance policy online

Following In Rome’s Footsteps: Moral Decay, Rising Inequality | ZeroHedge News

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Here is the moral decay of America’s ruling elites boiled down to a single word.

There are many reasons why Imperial Rome declined, but two primary causes that get relatively little attention are moral decay and soaring wealth inequality. The two are of course intimately connected: once the morals of the ruling Elites degrade, what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, too.

I’ve previously covered two other key characteristics of an empire in terminal decline: complacency and intellectual sclerosis, what I have termed a failure of imagination.

Michael Grant described these causes of decline in his excellent account The Fall of the Roman Empire, a short book I have been recommending since 2009:

There was no room at all, in these ways of thinking, for the novel, apocalyptic situation which had now arisen, a situation which needed solutions as radical as itself. (The Status Quo) attitude is a complacent acceptance of things as they are, without a single new idea.

This acceptance was accompanied by greatly excessive optimism about the present and future. Even when the end was only sixty years away, and the Empire was already crumbling fast, Rutilius continued to address the spirit of Rome with the same supreme assurance.

This blind adherence to the ideas of the past ranks high among the principal causes of the downfall of Rome. If you were sufficiently lulled by these traditional fictions, there was no call to take any practical first-aid measures at all.

A lengthier book by Adrian Goldsworthy How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower addresses the same issues from a slightly different perspective.

Glenn Stehle, commenting on a thread in the excellent website peakoilbarrel.com (operated by the estimable Ron Patterson) made a number of excellent points that I am taking the liberty of excerpting: (with thanks to correspondent Paul S.)

The set of values developed by the early Romans called mos maiorum, Peter Turchin explains in War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires, was gradually replaced by one of personal greed and pursuit of self-interest.

“Probably the most important value was virtus (virtue), which derived from the word vir (man) and embodied all the qualities of a true man as a member of society,” explains Turchin.

“Virtus included the ability to distinguish between good and evil and to act in ways that promoted good, and especially the common good. Unlike Greeks, Romans did not stress individual prowess, as exhibited by Homeric heroes or Olympic champions. The ideal of hero was one whose courage, wisdom, and self-sacrifice saved his country in time of peril,” Turchin adds.

And as Turchin goes on to explain:

“Unlike the selfish elites of the later periods, the aristocracy of the early Republic did not spare its blood or treasure in the service of the common interest. When 50,000 Romans, a staggering one fifth of Rome’s total manpower, perished in the battle of Cannae, as mentioned previously, the senate lost almost one third of its membership.This suggests that the senatorial aristocracy was more likely to be killed in wars than the average citizen…

The wealthy classes were also the first to volunteer extra taxes when they were needed… A graduated scale was used in which the senators paid the most, followed by the knights, and then other citizens. In addition, officers and centurions (but not common soldiers!) served without pay, saving the state 20 percent of the legion’s payroll…

The richest 1 percent of the Romans during the early Republic was only 10 to 20 times as wealthy as an average Roman citizen.”

Now compare that to the situation in Late Antiquity when

“an average Roman noble of senatorial class had property valued in the neighborhood of 20,000 Roman pounds of gold. There was no ‘middle class’ comparable to the small landholders of the third century B.C.; the huge majority of the population was made up of landless peasants working land that belonged to nobles. These peasants had hardly any property at all, but if we estimate it (very generously) at one tenth of a pound of gold, the wealth differential would be 200,000! Inequality grew both as a result of the rich getting richer (late imperial senators were 100 times wealthier than their Republican predecessors) and those of the middling wealth becoming poor.”

Do you see any similarities with the present-day realities depicted in these charts?

And how many congresspeople served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many presidential candidates had boots on the ground in combat theaters? The answer is one. Here is the moral decay of America’s ruling elites boiled down to a single word.

Source: Following In Rome’s Footsteps: Moral Decay, Rising Inequality

June 30 Power of the Flesh

Scripture reading: Romans 8:12–18

Key verse: Romans 8:8

So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

The part of man that is called the flesh can surface at any time in many ways. However, we can know one thing for sure: the goal of the flesh is to elevate self. We call it the flesh because it has to do with our fallen nature, which is in direct opposition to the things of God.

The fleshly attitudes within us can become quite obvious. They always prompt us to seek to be heard first and noticed above those around us. In dealing with the flesh, we quickly discover that not only does the flesh want its way, but it becomes indignant if others do not agree with it.

The flesh cannot be improved, disciplined, changed, or redeemed. It is the part of man that represents the fallen state of Adam. Only God can deal successfully with the flesh, and He has done this by eliminating its power.

Jesus has overcome the power of every fleshly action that we struggle against. When we pray and confess our need for Christ, He comes to us and abides with us through the power of the Holy Spirit. We are no longer under the rule of the flesh.

No longer are we reduced to pushing, planning, and plotting to be noticed or to attain worldly treasures. The very best is ours because we belong to almighty God. And His love for us is everlasting.

Lord, I realize that I cannot improve, discipline, change, or redeem my flesh. I submit my flesh to You. I am no longer under its rule.[1]


[1] Stanley, C. F. (2000). Into His presence (p. 189). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.