Podcasts about explicitly

Loving the convert isn't just a nice idea.It's a double mitzvah straight from the Torah.Every Jew has a mitzvah to love their fellow Jew. But when it comes to the ger, the convert, the Torah doubles it. Twice. Two separate mitzvot to love this soul who chose to come home.And then Hashem says something that stops you in your tracks.The sages ask, who is greater, the one who loves the king, or the one whom the king loves? The tzaddikim love Hashem. But Hashem loves the convert. Directly. Explicitly. In the Torah itself.There's a deer that wanders away from the wilderness and joins the flock. The king says, take care of this one. Feed them. Give them water. Don't cause them pain. Because they didn't have to do this. They left everything behind and came on their own.That's the ger.They weren't at Sinai. They didn't grow up with this. And yet here they are. Choosing God. Choosing the Jewish people. Choosing to be part of something eternal.Is there anyone more beloved than this?#Judaism #Torah #JewishConvert #JewishConversion #Giur

June 1, 2026 Daily Devotional:  “The Burden of Firstborn”Matthew 11:28-29 ​"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." ​There is a unique, unspoken code that comes with being the eldest sibling. From an early age, you are often the pioneer, the built-in babysitter, the example-setter, and the co-captain of the household. If you are the oldest son or daughter, you likely grew up fast. You learned to navigate the world first so you could pave a smoother path for those walking behind you. ​While leadership is a beautiful gift, eldest children often carry an invisible backpack filled with heavy weights. ​The weight of expectation and feeling likefailure isn't an option because everyone is watching. The weight of protection in shielding younger siblings from family storms, stress, orfinancial worries. ​The weight of perfectionism in believing your value is tied entirely to how well you perform, fix things, or keep the peace. ​It is incredibly easy for eldest siblings to slip into "survival mode"—living with an internal pressure to hold the entire world together on their own shoulders. Being the eldest child comes with a very specific,often unspoken set of rules. From an early age, firstborns are frequently given the role of the "third parent." You are expected to set the example, carry the family expectations, look after younger siblings, and handle things with a level of maturity beyond your years. ​Because of this, the "burden" and the "yoke" Jesus talks about hit differently for an eldest child. Here is what Matthew 11:28-29 means specifically through the lens of firstborn dynamics. But in Matthew 11, Jesuslooks directly at the weary, responsible, overburdened heart and offers a radical invitation-Drop the backpack! When Jesus invites us to take Hisyoke, He is reminding us that we were never meant to carry the weight of the world—or even the weight of our families—by ourselves. A yoke connects two oxenso they can share the load. Jesus is saying, "Let me take the heavy side." He doesn't ask you to be perfect; He asks you to be dependent on Him. ​If you are the eldest, today is your permission slip to stop trying to handle everything alone. You are a child of God before you are the oldest sibling. Your value to the Father is found in who you are, not in how much you can fix, carry, or endure for others. Jesus is explicitly telling the eldest child: "Stop trying to single-handedly pull the weight of your world." Whenyou step into the yoke with Him, you are allowing Him to be the older, stronger one who dictates the pace and absorbs the pressure. You don't have to figureeverything out on your own anymore. True rest for a firstborn means trusting that God is a better manager of your life, your future, and your family than you are. It means realizing that the world will not stop spinningif you take a break and let go of control. ​In today's challenge, identify one burden you've been carrying that isn't actually yours to fix. It might be a sibling's choice, a parent's stress, or an expectation of perfection you've placed on yourself. Explicitly hand it over to God in prayer. Take a deep breath and remind yourself: The world will not fall apart if I step back andlet God be God.

1. Athlete Compensation Protection Ensures athletes can: Earn money from legitimate NIL deals Participate in revenue sharing Prohibits: “Pay-for-play” disguised as NIL (e.g., booster cash handouts) 2. Transfer Rules Reform Allows: 1 unrestricted transfer Additional transfers allowed only under specific conditions: Coach leaves Program shuts down Athlete experiences serious issues (e.g., harassment) Otherwise: Athlete must sit out a year (“redshirt”) 3. Eligibility Limits Maximum: 5 years of eligibility Age cap of 24 (with exceptions like military service) Prevents older players from competing with younger athletes. 4. Athlete Health & Safety Protections Mandatory health insurance: Covers injuries for up to 5 years after playing No out-of-pocket costs Creation of a $60 million medical trust fund Stronger enforcement of: Concussion protocols Player safety standards 5. Academic Protections Prevents coaches from: Interfering with class attendance Steering players away from academics 6. Financial & Structural Reforms Allows schools/conferences to: Negotiate media rights collectively (to increase revenue) Requires: Preservation of scholarships and roster spots across all sports 7. Prevention of a “Super League” Explicitly blocks formation of a mega-conference (e.g., SEC + Big Ten merger) Aims to preserve competitive balance and opportunities for smaller schools 8. Coaching Stability Rule Coaches cannot: Leave for another job during a season or playoffs Designed to protect teams and players (informally referred to as the “Lane Kiffin rule”) Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sometimes we just need to break something, but we don't want to pay to replace it...Bill Richmond, the owner of Explicitly Broken Rage Room in Derby has you covered! He stopped by The Valley Diner to talk to Melissa about the Rage Room on the WICC Brown Roofing Melissa In The Morning Diner Tour!

In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse dive deep into Matthew 21:33-46, examining Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants. The hosts unpack how Christ masterfully draws the Pharisees into pronouncing their own condemnation, revealing not merely theological error but intentional usurpation of God's authority. Through careful exegesis, they explore the shocking setup of the parable—where the landowner does all the work while the tenants contribute nothing—and how this mirrors God's sovereign initiative in salvation. The discussion touches on confession, the value of full-time ministry, and the scandal of rejecting the Messiah despite recognizing His authority. This episode challenges listeners to examine whether they, like the Pharisees, attempt to claim God's work as their own. Key Takeaways God Does All the Verbs: The parable emphasizes that the landowner planted, built, protected, and prepared everything—the tenants contributed nothing yet claimed ownership of the fruit. Self-Pronounced Condemnation: Jesus draws the Pharisees into declaring their own judgment, demonstrating that even the unregenerate conscience bears witness to divine justice (Romans 2). Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error: The Pharisees weren't well-intentioned but misguided; they recognized Christ's authority as the heir and deliberately murdered Him to seize His inheritance. The Scandal of Grace: The parable's shocking element is that the landowner prepared everything before leasing the land—far exceeding normal agricultural arrangements and illustrating God's unmerited favor. Ecclesial Support for Ministry: The OPC presbytery's decision to fund a full-time call demonstrates how church structure can honor the ministry of Word and sacrament by freeing ministers from worldly distractions. Particular Repentance Matters: Westminster Confession 15.5 teaches that believers should not content themselves with general repentance but "endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly." The Stone Rejected Becomes Chief: Christ's citation of Psalm 118 reveals that the very rejection by the builders (religious leaders) was God's plan to establish the cornerstone of salvation. Key Concepts God Does All the Verbs The concentration of action verbs attributed solely to the landowner in Matthew 21:33 is theologically significant. The landowner plants, builds, digs, and rents—creating a fully functional, productive vineyard before the tenants ever arrive. This arrangement differs radically from typical first-century agricultural practices, where tenants would lease raw land and develop it themselves, sharing profits with the landowner. Jesus deliberately presents an extraordinary scenario where the tenants receive everything prepared and ready, requiring only stewardship of what already exists. This parallels God's sovereign initiative in election and salvation: believers contribute nothing to their standing before God, receiving instead a fully accomplished redemption. The Pharisees' rebellion wasn't against burdensome requirements but against simply acknowledging God's rightful ownership of what He alone created. Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error The hosts challenge the common sympathetic reading of the Pharisees as well-intentioned legalists who simply got sidetracked. Instead, verse 38 reveals the tenants explicitly recognize the son as heir and plot to murder him to "seize his inheritance." This isn't accidental rejection but calculated rebellion. The Pharisees weren't confused about Jesus's identity or authority—they understood precisely who He claimed to be and deliberately chose to destroy Him rather than submit. This interpretation carries significant weight for understanding the nature of unbelief: it's not primarily intellectual confusion but volitional rebellion. The religious leaders didn't need more evidence or clearer teaching; they needed transformed hearts. This same dynamic appears whenever humans recognize divine truth yet choose self-sovereignty over submission to God's rightful claim on their lives. The Scandal of Grace The parable begins with a scandalous premise that would have startled Jesus's original audience. Unlike normal tenant farming arrangements where landowners simply provided land in exchange for a share of whatever the tenants produced through their own labor, this landowner invests everything. He doesn't just own the property—he plants the vineyard, constructs the protective wall, digs the wine press for production, and builds the watchtower for defense. The tenants receive a turnkey operation requiring minimal effort. This extravagant preparation mirrors God's unmerited favor toward Israel and, by extension, the church. God didn't merely create humanity and wait to see what we would produce; He established covenants, sent prophets, preserved His Word, and ultimately sent His Son—all before requiring any response. The only "payment" demanded is acknowledging His ownership of what He created. The parable thus exposes the absurdity and ingratitude of claiming God's work as our own achievement. Memorable Quotes God does all the verbs. All of the verbs are done by the landowner. There is nothing expected of these tenants—they really add nothing to the landowner's land. Christ is not painting the Pharisees as well-intentioned but ultimately wrong. He's painting them as usurpers who recognize the proper authority and rather than submitting to it, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly. (Westminster Confession 15.5) Transcript Welcome to episode 491 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:12] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.  [00:01:17] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.  [00:01:18] Parable of Tenants [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: So picture this, Tony, your landlord. You've built the perfect vineyard. We're talking wall watchtower, wine, press, the works like what everybody says. Everybody knows you need all those things. You've got it all set up, and then you hand the keys to some tenants. You take a long trip, you go enjoy yourself. And when the harvest rolls around, you send your servants to collect the rent. And shockingly, your tenants, they beat. Stone. Another, the kill a third. So naturally you think, you know what? I'll fix this. Lemme just send more people. That's obviously the problem. There's some kind of just profound misunderstanding about what's going on here and about our relationship in this business. And then when that doesn't work, you send your son now loved ones. If this were a business strategy, we would already be calling hr. But of course it's not a business strategy, it's a parable. And Jesus is telling it to the very people about to prove the parable true. So welcome back to the Reformed Brotherhood because we're in Matthew Chapter 21 and we're gonna be actually getting all the way into the parable of the Vine growers where the patience of God looks, I would say, to almost anybody else, to humanize at least almost reckless until you realize that's exactly the point. So yeah, grab your beverage of choice, grab your Bible, pull the car over, will you? Because this is gonna get real and we're going to reason together. But before we do all of that, let's do a little affirming with or denying against, what do you got?  [00:02:41] Inside Baseball Affirmation [00:02:41] Tony Arsenal: So this is a sort of inside baseball, uh, affirmation. Um, I'm not sharing anything, although it may feel like I'm sharing something that is private and like, uh, like confidential. It's not No, this is good. Um, so I had the opportunity to visit. Um, my presbytery, um, for those who are listeners of the show or people who like, have been with us a long time, um, I was part of a Baptist church. Uh, I've always kind of been a Presbyterian at heart, but, um, our church closed, uh, a little over a year and a half ago now. And, um, uh, I've joined an OPC congregation in membership now. We've been members there for about a year. And, um, so I've been visiting Presbytery, which is the, the meeting of all of the leadership of all of the churches. So we won't do a polity breakdown here, but basically like, it's, it's the regional meeting. It's the regional business meeting or church meeting for a group of churches in the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And so a lot of the meetings, you know, have the normal kind of business type stuff. You have reports from different committee committees and stuff. Um.  [00:03:48] Presbytery Call Debate [00:03:48] Tony Arsenal: Where this is affirmation is coming in here is at this most recent presbytery meeting, um, was pretty heavy on, um, licensing or, or, uh, not licensing on approving men who had received a call to formal ministry within the presbytery. And so in the OPC, and I would imagine that other Presbyterian bodies are not like super different, although I'm sure there's some variation in the OPC. Um, when a church intends to extend a call to a pastor, to a teaching elder, um, to a minister, they must have the call, which is. Is both theological but is also eminently practical. Like the call is a physical piece of paper that details, you know, what the pay is, how much vacation time. So it's kind of a combination between like a theological call and also a contract. Um, the presbytery has to approve that call. And so at this most recent one, there was a couple calls that were more or less uncontroversial. There was no question about them, and they were approved pretty quickly. But there was one call, um, one call to ministry that took, I, I, I didn't time it, but it was probably like four or five hours of debate and discussion in various fashion in order to get to a point where the presbytery could approve the call. So this was a call to a minister who is being called part-time, which is unusual in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, the OPC uh, acknowledges the fact that bivocational tent making ministry is sometimes a necessity, but really views the ministry of the word in sacrament as something that should not have. Distractions. And actually our book of church order talks about, doesn't use the word distraction, I think, but it talks about a, a properly ordered call to a full-time minister includes phrasing that the congregation promises to compensate them in a way that allows them to be free of worldly burdens and cares. And I might have not, not have gotten that wording exactly right. But that's the idea. And so this call was. Explicitly, um, not a full-time call it, they actually took the language out of promising to pay him in a way that he's able to ignore or to not be distracted by worldly care. And that was intentional, but there was a lot of question in discussion at presbytery level about the fact that the call did not include the phrase or the wording of part-time or bivocational. So the conversation started out of like, can this call be modified to include that? So it's explicitly known in this man's call that his calling is part-time, which is both theological, to make sure that the call is properly formatted, but also like very practical that the congregation should acknowledge explicitly that they recognize that this person is not, not going to be putting, you know, 40 hours a week or 50 hours a week towards this position. [00:06:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:06:34] Tony Arsenal: Um. What I'm affirming is where it got to, right? So there was lots of discussion about that. There was some finagling about the retirement package. The OPC recommends that a, a minister be given a retirement contribution of no less than 5% a year of his salaried package. Um, which there's a couple line items that go into that, but 5%, and this was a little bit less than that. And this is what I'm affirming and this, I, I don't know that this is a super widespread thing that would happen all across the, um, the OPC, but it happened in the presbytery of New York and New England this past week, and it's just amazing. And I just, I just want to lay it out there and then I want to hear your reaction. [00:07:13] Funding Full Time Ministry [00:07:13] Tony Arsenal: And I, I wanna hear your reaction as the son of a minister who labored his entire adult, more or less, his entire adult career in ministry, working two or three additional jobs on top of his ministry, the presbytery decided. That because it did not like the idea of a part-time minister. They didn't think that was appropriate. They didn't think that that was good or that that was really the right goal. The presbytery allocated, I'm not gonna say the figures 'cause they're not super germane, but allocated a significant amount of money to be dis to be dispersed to the church for the next three years in order to take what was a part-time call and enable it to become a full-time call. [00:07:54] Jesse Schwamb: Wow.  [00:07:54] Tony Arsenal: And so there are a lot of, there are a lot of church bodies that would say, yeah, we don't love the idea of bi-vocational ministry. You know, we really think it's ideal that a minister could be full-time. Um, they may even put some, some theological freight behind that. Um, I have never encountered a body, um. That was willing to put a sizable amount of money towards essentially supplementing a part-time call to make it full-time. Um, this was just amazing to me, and the candidate was there. I didn't get a chance to talk to him, but I would love to talk to him about what he felt. I, I can just imagine the phone call to his wife who was not, not at presbytery, but to his wife, following the outcome of this to be like, you are never gonna believe what just happened. Right? This is a family who was intending to move across country. Right. He's currently a student at Westminster, California in seminary, uh, California, Westminster Seminary in California, finishing his M Div. They're planning a cross country move into a part-time position where she's probably gonna have to find a job, and then also he's gonna have to find a part-time job. He had the ability to call her on the break and be like, you're never gonna guess what just happened? You're never gonna,  [00:09:09] Jesse Schwamb: it's wild.  [00:09:09] Tony Arsenal: Uh, sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. You're never going to. Believe how faithful God is in this. Right. So I'm interested to hear your reaction to that as the son of a, of a try and quad at times Quad vocational. Yeah,  [00:09:23] Jesse Schwamb: for sure.  [00:09:23] Tony Arsenal: Minister who labored his entire, more or less, his entire adult career, um, working full-time in a call as a part-time, part-time minister. You know, like that's a, that's a crazy situation. So I'm just affirming that again, I don't know how common that kind of thing is in the OPC. I don't wanna make it seem like that's the norm. Um, I actually get the sense that this is probably not the norm, but it was amazing to see and it made me in intensely like. Proud in the right way of being a part of this broader body that would, would so emphasize and so value the ministry of the word and the sacrament, and the importance of a man being able to dedicate himself to that without distraction. That they would put forward this amount of money and this kind of money. They had no reason to do so. And there's no real direct benefit to the presbytery for doing this. I mean, there's an indirect benefit of like not having a church with a part-time minister, but like there's no direct benefit to this. There's no direct return on investments that's gonna come out of this. Um, it was pretty amazing to see. It was, it was, it was super encouraging.  [00:10:28] Jesse Schwamb: That is really encouraging. I, I think it's, there's no doubt that for the called pastor, their heart is in the ministry of the word. That's what they want to be doing. They wanna be doing it all the time and as much time as they possibly can, and they wanna be able to have all of their intentional focus on it. So I. I'm excited for that guy. I mean, that's just an incredible blessing to go in hoping for funding, essentially for a part-time role and to basically be told, no, no, no, no, that's, that's not enough. We want you to be committed to this fully as we know your heart is committed. As we validated that call.  [00:11:00] Why Structure Matters [00:11:00] Jesse Schwamb: I do love being a part of churches, well, lemme say it this way. There is, I think, a benefit of being part of congregations that have like a wide resource network that has like appropriate hierarchy and structure and that can be one of them. I've seen something similar in the Christian Missionary Alliance, which is the church that I'm in, not exactly the same, but I've seen some surprising allocations of resources where they basically said, you know, this is important. Like, it even trumps we're, we're gonna. Allocate or resource something so that this can move forward because it is important in a way that was like better than the person who was bringing it before them could have hoped for. Yeah. And uh, suddenly it's as if everything aligned. And it was really in part because there was this structure to come alongside, to validate as you're saying, and then to authenticate and then again to resource assets that could be used. There's, there's something to be said for that interdependency where there is kind of this hierarchical structure in which all that's happening at a level where things are codified. And again, like there's a structure and a way in which we move through those decisions to make sure that they suit the objective of the entire movement. So I guess there's nothing I'll say, but that's a beautiful thing, isn't it?  [00:12:14] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:12:15] Generosity in Action [00:12:15] Tony Arsenal: It was, it was, it was cool because it was like this, it was like this real. Actualization of the principle of outdoing one another and showing honor. Yeah, sure. Because you know, like the initial debate was like, Hey, you know, I'm not sure we can approve this call because the, the OPCs guidelines tell us not to approve a call that has less than 5% of the retirement benefit. And there was a lot of discussion of like, well, the presbytery can't modify the call, but we don't wanna delay this guy coming in and like, we don't wanna delay his ordination, his installation. And so the initial proposal was a, a. What feels like a large amount of money to me. But after I understood more about the, the budget of what's going on in, in the presbytery was actually a very small amount of money. Started with a very tiny, very modest proposal of basically like supplementing the retirement fund to make sure that like we could, they, I say we, like, I was part of this, I was just observing, but to supplement the retirement fund in a way that allowed the church to still proceed with the call as written, but still also make sure that this person had the appropriate retirement fund. And then that just basically was like, there would be some instruction given to the church that like, you've gotta bump this up in the next budget cycle. Like you've gotta get to the 5%. That's, that's the expectation. It went from that. And like I said, I won't give you the specific numbers, but one of the presbyters and I, I'm, I, um, I, I've known this presbyter from a distance for quite a long time and, and I have an immense amount of respect for him. He stood up and he's like, well, if we're gonna give X, why don't we just give 10 times X instead? And then actually, like the discussion was like, well, is, are we sure that 10 times X is even the right amount? Why don't we have this particular group meet over the lunch break and figure out whether that's the right number and then come back after lunch and we'll vote on it. And then they came back after lunch and it was actually a number that was even greater than 10 times X. So it was like this exercise in like. This very small proposal that was still imminently generous, right? The presbytery has no obligation to do this. There's no obligation from any of the presbyters to stand up and say like, we should. We should supplement this fund. They would've been well within their right, and no one would've looked, I think. I think some people would've been frustrated by it, but I don't think anyone would've looked sideways at it or thought it was sinful. If the presbytery just said like, we can't approve this call. You guys are gonna have to come back with it and we'll vote on it at the next presbytery. Like that would've been problematic. This, this kind of poor guy who's coming outta seminary, his call and his beginning of employment would've been delayed, but like. That would've been good and orderly, but instead they were like, one, we don't want this pulpit to stay empty longer. We don't wanna disadvantage this guy who's just getting done with seminary. We want him to get started. We don't wanna discourage him. So here's a small proposal, a very modest amount of money that we can put forward for this purpose. And then it was like, let's just keep seeing how much closer to a real full-time call we can get. And they finally came back and said like, we're gonna do this. We're gonna do this in a wise fashion. They structured it. So like the first year he gets more, the second year he gets a little bit less. The third year the church gets a little bit less with the idea that like each year the church should be adjusting their budget to compensate and get this guy to that with the, the hope that like with a full-time minister, they're able to grow their congregation to the point where they can support a full-time minister. So it was just this really cool, super encouraging exercise. And what I loved about it is the only real debate that was going on was about do we need to do more? There was no one being like, wait a second, why are we, why are we putting more money to this? The whole thing was like, is this actually enough to accomplish what we think God wants to do with this person's call? Because if, if God is truly calling this man to this, this particular church, and we believe that he is. Then what do we as a, as a people of God need to do to enable that call to look like what we actually believe calls to ministry are supposed to look like, which is a full-time call to ministry that is undistracted by the cares of the world. What do we need to do? The answer in this case was like, I think we need to put a sizable amount of money to it. Um, it's a, I mean, and again. I'm not gonna say it on the air. It was not a small chunk of change. Um, it was, it was a, it was a large amount of money that was devoted to this cause and that just goes to show how much this body values the importance of a full-time minister of the word, so. [00:16:50] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:16:51] OPC Love and Recommendation [00:16:51] Tony Arsenal: That's enough about that. I, I could gush about how proud I am to be a part of this body and how encouraged I am and how amazing it was and how awesome this, this guy, how, how much this guy must be thanking God for the providence and like, this is the last thing. I'll say this, this young man younger than me, I think he's graduating seminary. I saw him across the room. He looks like he's probably in his mid twenties, right? Young guy. He's got a wife doesn't have kids yet coming into this ministry, not only is he coming into this ministry, but as a Presbyterian minister, when he's installed as the minister of this church. He will be joining this body of presbyters as the, as his brothers like. He is not a member of the local church. He's a member of the presbytery, which is the regional church. So now he's coming into this fully supported by his brothers in the presbytery that he saw go to the mat to make sure he was properly taken care of, that the congregation was not unintentionally taking advantage of his labor, but also that he knows that all of these men are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that his ministry is successful and edifies the church like that is. Uh, I don't want to gush on Presbyterianism too much, but like that is Presbyterianism at peak form, right? This is the body of elders making sure that every church in the region, even the ones they're not directly ministering in, has what it needs to succeed and to honor God and to do what needs to happen. So I'm affirming the presbytery of New York and New England and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, I have been so blessed by knowing many of these presbyters. I've been so blessed by being a part of the congregation that I am. There are lots of really great churches and really great denominations out there. If you are looking for a church and there is an OPC congregation in your area, absolutely go check it out. I know it feels stuffy sometimes, and I will admit, like sometimes it feels a little bit overly traditional in terms of like just the vibe of the congregation,  [00:18:52] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:18:52] Tony Arsenal: But press past that because I don't think, I don't think you will find, um. You may find lots of congregations that are as faithful. I don't think you're gonna find many that are more faithful than your average OPC congregation. So I could be wrong. I just, I just love the OPC. I just really, really love it. So that's my affirmation. What do you got for us, Jesse?  [00:19:18] Denial Catholic Confession Math [00:19:18] Jesse Schwamb: I think I got denial, which is maybe a little bit unusual for me. [00:19:21] Tony Arsenal: As long as you're not denying the OPCI think we're fine.  [00:19:23] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's, it's not, it is church related and I, I'll try to keep it short 'cause I think I can make this way longer than it, it probably should be, but lemme think how to phrase this. So, I don't know with a devil negative, I guess when I'm a denying against is maybe not enough confession by your own standard. So the, I'm gonna try to make this so brief. I, I just happened to be out with my wife this afternoon and we had to run errands. We got stuck in traffic and this gave me longer than usual to sit in front of our. Very local and very large Catholic church. So I happen to be looking at their sign. It's a very large congregation. I've been actually been in this one on a couple of occasions for funerals. So not only do I know its size and scope, but again, if you get, if you get on this road at the wrong time on the Lord's day, you're gonna be stuck for a long time because there are so many people that attend. I say that because I noticed on the sign that there were three times for mass on the Lord's Day. So that also says something about the number of people coming through. And then on the sign though, underneath it said for confessions, go to our website. Mm-hmm. So I was like, man, I gotta lick this up because I can't tell if they're telling me I can confess on the website or if it's go to the website for the times. And I said to my wife, only half jokingly, if I can confess online, I'm gonna confess something. So I went to, I went to the website and, and sure enough it was almost disappointingly. It was just the times.  [00:20:45] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:46] Jesse Schwamb: Here's what I've found interesting, which just launched me into this like deep rabbit hole. There were three times for confession. Two of those times were just a half an hour, and the third time was an hour. So, uh, what I did was I went through, actually, I think what they had on there was, was three full hours a week. It was a little bit confusing, but I think it was three full hours. Now I think about it. So I went back, I just couldn't help myself, Tony. So I started to think, alright, let's say. I think it's fair to assume  [00:21:15] Tony Arsenal: math, Jesse is kicking in right now. Yes. You're gonna calculate how many minutes per, per person is what you're doing. I'm thinking, ah,  [00:21:22] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it's something like that. So what I thought was, I don't think it's, uh, I was gonna be conservative. I wanna be fair. I wanna be fair. So, and now we should say like, I think most people realize that the Catholic understanding of confession and the Protestant one is, is very different. The Catholic sacrament of confession is the right through which Catholics are gonna confess their sins to a priest receive absolution, and it's gonna restore the relationship with God in the church. And, and they're gonna believe that the priest acts as a person of Christ and is bound by the seal of confession and an absolute kind of obligation. Uh, of course never to reveal what was disclosed during that process. So, by the way, the website that I went to, lovely instructions. I mean, I was like, wow. I was reading it to my wife who was, uh, not familiar with this at all, and she was like, they can make you do stuff. And I was like, well, yeah. I mean, obviously like there's, there's a portion of this where there's contrition or penant penance. It could be a prayer, it could be act of charity, like all kinds of stuff. So I went back and I thought. I don't think it's unreasonable that there's 350 persons that would say, let's say an average, uh, that would wanna take part of confession. Now, let's say that they did that at, at least monthly, just once a month. And, and I don't know how people's conviction is on that, but I'm gonna say conservatively once a month. Let's say that, and I don't think this is unreasonable, Tony, but you tell me. Let's say you're, you're trucking, you're moving through confession. Let's say it's five minutes a piece. So we're up to 1,750 minutes, uh, per month. That's the demand on the priest because I was, I was looking at this time and I was thinking something is strange here to me, so. That was the demand then, and I'll spare you the other math, which could be very long and un uninteresting. I'm coming up with, you'd need 2.24, two and a quarter priests, which of course you can't have a quarter priests or a quarter person for any reason. So you'd hire, you'd hire three priests, which satisfy the demand if, and the major assumptions here, that is like everybody can't show up at the same time. Obviously, I'm assuming that like everybody has their own time, they're spreading it out. So everybody gets the confession, but it's just five minutes. And I, I have no idea. I mean, if you're a Luther, that's certainly not sufficient time.  [00:23:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:23:20] Jesse Schwamb: And you would need three priests. Now here's the thing that I just kind of backed into that, besides like three being like, okay, that, that's, you would need three priests just to satisfy this congregation. If they're confessing for five minutes, once per month. Uh, by the way, if you said, well, half the congregation is going to go weekly, uh, then you, you would double the number of priests you need to 5.98 or six. But here's, here's the bottom line for me. This is why the denial comes in about maybe not enough, is. If you were just to distill that down to like, if you could have one priest cover that time, that there's a demand for like 779.4 hours, or excuse me, minutes of confession, that priest would only be allocating approximately like seven and a half percent of their working hours, their work toward handling confession. This seems like not enough confession given the standards of confession in the Catholic church. And again, I know that I'm, I'm now allocating that to one priest and I just told everybody you need three. That's true. So if you had these three now, if you hired three just to meet the demand, that would only be about like three and a half or a little under three and a half percent of their combined time. So the denial is Catholics, I think, unless I'm way off in some of my assumptions here, you might not be confessing enough by your own standards because  [00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, that seems like not enough time.  [00:24:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:24:39] Ritual Faithfulness Explained [00:24:39] Tony Arsenal: I mean, I think, um. I don't want to be too bombastic here, but I think,  [00:24:46] Jesse Schwamb: I think I already started this on this  [00:24:48] Tony Arsenal: path. Maybe this, maybe this isn't all that bombastic. Um, because this is so much about ritual and actually I say this is gonna sound really, we, we go, but trying to think from the Roman Catholic perspective, it's actually not, and I'll I'll tell you a brief story, uh, to explain it. Um, a lot of Roman Catholics are just going through the motions. [00:25:13] Jesse Schwamb: That's true.  [00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: But the point, the, the, the point of contention actually is that going through the motions is valuable for the Roman Catholic, right? So I, I knew this, uh, this young woman when I was in college who was a Roman Catholic, and we had many discussions about, about the differences between Protestantism and and Roman Catholicism. And what I came to understand is that going to mass for her. Itself was an act of faith. And so for the Roman Catholic, the concept of, of faith is different than the concept that Protestants operate under. So for the Roman Catholic who, um, goes to mass, even when they feel like they're, like, when they think they're just going through the motions, going through the motions is itself the act of faith. And that's because for most of Roman Catholics, most of Roman Catholicism, faith really equals faithfulness, right? So, so doing the act is the act of faithfulness. Doing the act is faith. Where for the Protestant, like faith is about belief and trust and knowledge. Like it's, it's an. Not entirely intellectual, but it's, it's an inward thing for the Roman Catholic faith is an out is primarily an outward thing. It's what you do, it's how you act. It's faith formed in love. It's faith formed in charity.  [00:26:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:26:37] Tony Arsenal: So I think most Roman Catholics going to obligatory confession first. I think once a month is probably like, probably more frequent than most Roman Catholics go to mass or go to confession. Um, I thought I read a stat that it was like every six months is, is pretty average and I think that's what's required by the church maybe even once a year is, is required by the church. Um, I think like most Roman Catholics go into the, the confessional booth and like father forgive me for I've sinned. It's been such and such a number of days since my last confession. Right. And they may bring up a couple particular things that they've done and, and then I think the priest commonly absolves them of all of their sins. Like, almost like in an omnibus fashion and then prescribes their acts of penance, which is it, it like, honestly, it's probably things they should already be doing as a faithful Catholic saying Hail Marys and doing our fathers and acts of charity and things like that. So I think your math is probably right. [00:27:39] Protestant Repentance Particular [00:27:39] Tony Arsenal: I think your, your theory that more confession is probably like, I'm gonna read this from, uh, the Westminster confession, just to, just to say it here, is, this is chapter 15, which is titled of Repentance Under Life. And this is, uh, this is section five or paragraph five. It says, men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but is every man's duty to endeavor, to repent of his particular sins, particularly. And I think that's just such a beautifully phrased sentence like. Not only is it like potent theologically, but like, it just, it just feels good, like in terms of like the English language to repent of your particular sins, particularly. And like the idea is yes, Protestant reform, Christians affirm a general repentance from sin, right? We repent of our sin before the father, uh, as a result of our, of our coming to faith in Christ. And as part of our sanctification, we mortify our sin and we, Viv we are vivified by the spirit and repentance falls in that ongoing sanctification process. And there is this general repentance of like, I repent of the fact that I'm a sinner and that I commit sins, but there is this element in the reformed faith of like, I should be confessing to God. And I think by extension, like we should be confessing to our fellow Christians, our particular sins, our individual sins, and we should be doing that on particular occasion. And I think like. The Luther style confession of like going into the confessor and confessing like every particular sin. Particularly I think most Roman Catholic priests would, priests. Priests would probably have the same reaction Tobits did where he was like, get outta here. Like, come on dude. Like just go live your life and like deal with it. I think that's probably the reaction most Catholic priests would have. But yeah, I think you're right. Like if we're really talking about like. Five, five minutes of confession once a month and that somehow having some sort of spiritual efficacy. I'm not sure I buy that math. Like I think you're, you're probably spot on.  [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:29:47] Confession Hours Oddities [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: I just was curious about how many priests would be required and then the allocation of the duties. By the way, you are right. So I, because I had to check on this, the, the fourth letter in council of 1215 does say that the church requires confession of any grave or mortal sins at least once a year. But the church, yeah, strongly encourages more frequent confession as a spiritual practice, even for, of course, like the venial or the less serious sins in their eyes. So yeah, my thought here was just that. I think it's actually undervalued by way of the math. Like the, as the kids say, the math just isn't math thing for me on this one. But I was more curious about, since this is one of the seven sacraments, even if you just said like, well, it should have at least one seven of the allocation. That's like, what? Like something like 14%. And so this is, um, almost half of that. I just found it a little bit, a little bit odd and yeah, I think you'd have to be, uh, so in other words, when I looked at the, basically, here's the bottom line. When I looked at the hours for confession one, there were weird times and uh, two, I was like, that doesn't seem like enough hours. Like, it was just more like that. Like how that's like saying like, Hey, the post office is open three hours a week, and by the way, one of those hours is from seven to eight o'clock on Friday. Like they had some hours. One hour just on Friday was like, I guess that's the way you wanna start your weekend is like, let's get all of this off my chest. Yeah. And, and do it. Right. And the last thing I'll say by the way, is you're correct. When you look at the instruction they give you, and this is common of course, toward the end, when they say like, here's how you like wrap up your part. Actually everybody should go read, go to the local, local Catholic church website and read the instructions. 'cause in some ways they're just interesting and kind of, um, I don't wanna say funny 'cause I'm not making fun. I'm just saying like, they have to give you instruction if you've never done it before. And so most of us are not really probably familiar with the process and they give you explicit instruction and toward the end it's like, here's how you kinda like hang up the call with the priest. And it's like you said, you know, these are my sins and all others, would you be willing to forgive? So you're right. Right. They just kinda wrap them all up because it's sins of omission, sense of commission, it's all to be together. But I, I wonder, you gotta think there's people in there that are like. The priests are like, okay, man, just yeah. Wrap, come on, wrap, wrap it up.  [00:31:55] Confession Timing Talk [00:31:55] Jesse Schwamb: And other people that come in are just like, you know, forgive me father. And uh, lastly to your point, when they give you instruction about how you should start, of course you're always to signify how long it's been since your last confession. Right. Confession. And they say parenthetically, like, reference the days, weeks, months, or years. So you're right. There are gonna be people that probably do it very frequently and probably people who do it infrequently still, I would say I just couldn't believe for a church this large, that there was just three hours a week.  [00:32:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:21] Jesse Schwamb: For everybody else.  [00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:23] Vance and Papal Authority [00:32:23] Tony Arsenal: This leads me to two very brief sub, uh, denials slash affirmations. Uh, I don't know if you saw this, um, this is not a political statement, right? I, I have lots of feelings and thoughts about the current administration and I think most of my feelings and thoughts would surprise. Everybody. But I thought it was hilarious because JD Vance, who is a Roman Catholic, uh, confessed Roman Catholic part of the Roman Catholic Church, uh, he ha I, I'm not sure if I'm affirming or denying this, there was this funny, uh, funny exchange. I think he was at doing like a, doing like a TPU, I don't know, speech. He was doing a speech at some conservative event and he said something like, I think that the Pope should be more careful when he makes theological statements. I'm wanna be like, do you understand what the pope is in your religion? That was one of my sub denials. Uh, I don't remember what the other one is, so it must not have been that important. It'll come back to me at the worst possible moment and I will try very hard not to interrupt our show for it, but I probably will fail.  [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:33:25] Reading Matthew 21 [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, we, we gotta get to some scripture because. We're, we're doing this old school style where we take like half the time and just talk about affirmations. It's true in house. It's true. Which is great fun. But let's, let's get back to Matthew 21. And I, I know we did this last time, but I am gonna rock through the passage 'cause of course, that's the best part of any of our discussion, is actually hearing from, from the Holy Spirit through the scripture, uh, which he's given to us. So this is, uh, Matthew 21, starting in verse 33. And you're gonna hear the, the whole thing right here. Uh, this is Jesus speaking. Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it and built a tower and rented it out to vine growers and went on a journey. Now, when the high risk time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit, and the vine growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent another group of slaves larger than the first, and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them saying they will respect my son. But when the vine growers saw the sun, they said among themselves, this is the heir. Come let us kill him and seize his inheritance, and they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to other vine growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons. Jesus said to them, did you ever read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls in the stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they understood that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds because they're regarding him to be a prophet. [00:35:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:35:30] Pharisees Condemn Themselves [00:35:30] Tony Arsenal: This is like a super heavy parable. Right. And we talked a lot last week about how like the point of this parable is not necessarily to try to instruct the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Like it's not to instruct the people who were going to reject Christ, uh, the, the builders who would reject the cornerstone. It's really a parable to teach those. Who are observing this process happening. But I think it's, I, I think it's really interesting just listening to you read this and reading through it, and I guess this is a question I haven't asked and I, I need to study a little bit more. It's crazy to me in verse 41, um, Christ seems the, the, the, um, Matthew seems to say here, and maybe I need to do a little bit more Greek study, so bear with me and, and have grace if I'm wrong here. Matthew seems to say that like Christ asks the people he's speaking to, the Pharisees he's speaking to, what is he gonna do to these people? And the Pharisees answer, he's gonna put those wretches to a miserable death.  [00:36:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right?  [00:36:37] Tony Arsenal: Like the people listening to this parable understand the outcome, like they understand the. The consequence that the, the, the vineyard owner or the vineyard tenant tenants are facing based on their lack of faithfulness to the covenant. To me, that is like a really striking part of this parable. And, and it's not even like the parable proper, but like the striking element of the context of this is that nobody listening to this parable, including the Pharisees that this parable has basically spoken against, nobody fails to see the gravity of the consequence of rejecting God's emissary, like rejecting the Messiah. That to me is like a really, I dunno, paradigmatic. Portion of this that I think we need to grapple with. This is not an unclear, an unclear outcome. This is not, this is not masked or vague or OPA opaque. Like everybody understands, the people who reject the Messiah are going to face dire and eternal consequences for that act. [00:37:48] Jesse Schwamb: That does make this really interesting, doesn't it? Because it's not just entirely like Romans one adventures or even Romans two. It's that this is what Jesus does and he does it in a profound way that's not trickery like I think kinda like you're saying like the lead up to this isn't as if he's even leading the witness. He's making it very clear, all like the parameters of the story and the characters involved and what should be the proper judgment. And it's not as if like they start saying, they're like, oh, we shouldn't say anything more like we, we plead the fifth because it's gonna condemn ourselves. He draws his audience in to producing and pronouncing like their own sentence. It's very much like, I think I mentioned this last time, the prophet Nathan and David, isn't it? It's the exact same. Yeah. And the verdict is unanswerable, like even in its own terms. These other, like these other vine growers, prefigures of course like the inclusion of the Gentiles and the apostolic office. But I like that what Jesus does here, even before he gets to that point, is he extorts from them an acknowledgement of the punishment which awaited them. And so in this way there's like, I think the Puritans use this passage a lot actually to demonstrate that the natural conscience even of like the unregenerate, still bears witness to divine justice. That's Romans two. Like they, they can't get out from underneath it and Jesus isn't using any trickery on them to get them to say this thing. They are compelled in their own way, even being unregenerate to, like you said, even as they're rejecting the Messiah to recognize that punishment is due these characters in the story, even as they perceive at the end that they are those characters. [00:39:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:22] Jesse Schwamb: Saying we'll receive the judgment.  [00:39:24] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:25] Usurpers Not Misguided [00:39:25] Tony Arsenal: And I think too, like, um, this is kind of one of those chicken or the egg scenarios, right? Like Christ is both recognizing the intention of their heart as well as prophesying. And, and not just prophesying, but like inception level prophesying the, the outcome of the intention of their heart. And so like, again, like we've, we spent a whole week kind of like leading into the parable and now we spent a whole week, we're gonna spend a whole week again kind of leading into the parable. This is such a deep parable, and that like Christ is not just laying bare. The fact that the, the people who were going to reject him were doing so out of this sort of like attempt and intention of usurping the kingdom of God for their own purposes. I think that brings a layer to this that we don't often appreciate in. Christ's interaction with the Pharisees. I think sometimes, and maybe this is because I just listened to an episode of where Matt Whitman on the 10 minute Bible hour talked about this. I think sometimes we actually have a tendency to sort of be sympathetic to the Pharisees where we think, you know, they were, they were just trying to obey God's law and they got a little sideways on it and you know, they were putting these boundaries in place, but they were doing it in this sort of like misguided attempt to protect the people. Christ actually here seems to contradict that in that the comparison he's making is not to a, a well-intentioned group of people who just get it wrong, but he's painting the Pharisees, the, the religious leaders, the Sadducees, the chief priests. He's painting them as these usurpers who recognize the proper authority of right. The master and his emissaries and ultimately of his son, they recognize this proper authority and rather than submitting to it and submitting to the covenant obligations that they, they already actually agreed to, instead of doing that, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own right. It's not just that they do the wrong thing, it's that they recognize the heir, which is Christ. They recognize this heir and they kill him to try to take his place. That is a really heavy element of this parable. Christ is not painting. Um, the, the, the Pharisees here, the, the religious leaders. He's not painting them as um, well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong, which is I think a lot of times, and I think there's reason to do this right. I'm not being overly critical and I've done this, I've actually done this myself, and I think there's some. Space for it. Like the Pharisees were wrong, but they were wrong, kind of in the right direction sometimes. Um, Christ is not really on board with that, at least in this parable. Right. This isn't about them thinking that the heir was a threat, and so killing the threat in, you know, inadvertently this is them absolutely seeing who the hair, who the heir is, and intentionally deciding to reject that heir and to murder him and to try to take his inheritance. Mm-hmm. That's an affront to not only the heir who they murder, but an affront to the owner of the vineyard himself, which of course in this parable is figured to be God the father primarily. But God in sort of general terms, like the whole Godhead, um, with Christ as the second Adam has, as his representative, as his heir. This is a really heavy parable and I think where this comes into play for us in our own Christian life is. Are there times where we. Sort of do the same thing in refusing to, maybe it's tie into your denial a little bit. Like refusing to acknowledge our own sinfulness, refusing to acknowledge the ways that God has provided for us. Um, do we at times look at what we have and lay claim to it as though it is our own inheritance that we've taken? Um, right. Do we kind of crucify the son of God anew in, in refusing to repent of our sins particularly? I dunno. I think those are some open questions for us to kind of explore as we dig into this a bit more. [00:43:54] Jesse Schwamb: And that may relate as well to, well eventually at some point, I dunno, like 2040, get to like the parable of the talents. There's some similarity there with a little bit, right? You're saying? I think you're right.  [00:44:06] God Does All the Verbs [00:44:06] Jesse Schwamb: And where I think we can anchor some of that is in those first couple of verses. I'm really always impressed by really the number of action verbs that are packed within, like that just initial statement of Jesus explaining the situation. [00:44:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:44:19] Jesse Schwamb: So he sets it all up and he's saying there's a planting that goes on, this landowner puts up a wall, digs a wine press. Builds a tower and then RINs it. So there's all these like amazing things being done, all this action verb. And I, I think in part why he comes against the Pharisees so hard in the same way that we're looking at like the parable that, uh, the, uh, talents for instance of saying like, what did you do with that was entrusted to you was like this great treasure which Christ has entrusted or God has entrusted to his people, which is, is the gospel essentially is, is all a prophetic witness, is like the truth of who God is and his revelation of himself. And so I think. The first thing we gotta see in those verbs is that there's this emphasis that the vineyard was God's sovereign creation. You know, he plants it, he chose it, he established it. Israel didn't plant herself. She was planted. And that sovereign initiative is foundational, I think in, like you're saying, the parables indictment, because these vine growers, they don't possess anything that they did not receive. Right. You know, they did not find a vineyard already planted, but God himself made it from the wilderness that all his glory, all the glory might be his. So. I think it's helpful for us to observe that the church is always the planting of the Lord and that no congregation flourishes that is not first planted by God. And so there is a major offense here when those who are to care for it, who know, like you're saying, that they ought to care for it, who understand something about the hierarchy and the way it has been entrusted to them. Not to only break that covenant, but then seek to try to usurp the power in the roles of those whom they should be, quite frankly, in our own language, like under shepherds too. And so it starts with all, all those verbs. Like I think we could probably spend a. A lot of times just speaking about what does it mean? Why? Why is there all this explicit in particular language about the fact that there's a hedge and there's a press besides just these are part in piece mail or part and parcel of what it means to have a vineyard, apparently, but that they're all part of this narrative of God talking about how he protects and cares for his people and sets them in a place and chooses them and is particular about the construction and does so with great volition and authority and care and concern and creative ability. And then again, you have those who are meant there to do the very job that he's entrusted them with. And not only are they not doing that, and of course you're right. Jesus elsewhere, comes in, comes in hot, right, with a Pharisees saying like, listen, you set burdens on people's backs that you yourselves cannot lift. You're twice as in the hell as anybody else, and that's who you are. Yeah. It's not just hypocrisy, but you're literally setting people up to fail in this. So you can see how you're right. It's not just like, guys, I appreciate that. Like you wanted to set up some additional boundaries and maybe you took it a little bit too far. This parable is just scorched earth. It's, it's nuclear. Yeah.  [00:47:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:47:11] Scandalous Vineyard Setup [00:47:11] Tony Arsenal: And you know, I think, um, we are obviously gonna spend another week on this 'cause we still have not really addressed a single verse in this parable. I, I think like a lot of ink has been spilled on explaining sort of like the feal agricultural arrangements of this passage. What it represents. M my understanding is. A typical arrangement would be that a, a landowner would basically just lease out land and the tenants would be responsible for the planting, for the development. Right. And the, the, the landowner would essentially just collect a portion of whatever they produce. Right. This parable is actually taking this a step further. Exactly. That it's not as though the landowner just says like, all right, you can use this land. Right. And I own the land, so I get a portion of the pro, the profit. He's actually done all the work. Yes. And all that. The, all that the, the tenants need to do essentially is reap the harvest and then provide the portion of the harvest that belongs to the landowner, and so there is a greater investment. Of the landowner into this land than would be expected. We've commented in the past about how a lot of times the, the parables start on sort of a premise of shock. Like there's a, there's an element of the setup of the, of the parable where the audience would kind of like sit back and gasp or kind of be like, wait a second. Like that's not normal. Right. In the parable of the, the, um, lost son, it was the idea that like the son demanded his inheritance. And that wasn't the shocking part. The shocking part was that the father just granted it. Right. Or, um, the lost sheep, like the, there's actually a sort of a shocking element to the fact that like the, the land, the like sheep owner would just go get this other sheep. So we've, we've commented on there's kind of like. There's sort of like a scandalous setup. The scandalous setup in this is not that the land has been leased to tenants, right? It's that the land has been prepared for the tenants before it was leased out in the first place. And I think that's something we might miss if we read over this too quickly, is. The landowner has prepared everything for these, these tenants.  [00:49:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:49:31] Tony Arsenal: So the, the, at the, the punchline of the parable where they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of, um, sovereignty and maybe a lowercase s in the, in the context of the parable, they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty and the rightful claim of the tenant or of the landowner on the, the profit of the land. And sort of like highlighter emphasized by the fact that they actually didn't do any of the work. There's a certain kind of like Amer, like American rugged individualism where we're kind of like, yeah, like if I planted all the crops, then it's kind of lame that this guy's coming in expecting to take a portion of it, right? Like, yeah, I guess he owns the land, so maybe he gets a little piece of it, but like, who does he think he is? All of that already is already short circuited. Like I. The, these tenants are not actually, um, portrayed as doing anything in this parable. That's right. Like they just lease the land. They, they, um, and leased is not really like the right. The right word, the, the Greek word is omi, which is like he gave over the land to them. Um, when we say leased, we have this idea that like the tenants pay to use the land and then like part of their contract is that whatever profits they reap, uh, off the land goes back to the, to the landowner. This is really more like the landowner graciously allowed them to live on this land, and the only payment he required was that they would eventually provide him part of the profit back. Like he's planted the land, he's put up the fence around it. He dug the wine press so that they could make a product out of it. He built the tower so it would be defended. Yes. And he gave it over to them essentially just to like live on until it was time for the harvest. And all he is asking for is basically like, alright, so this is my land. I've planted the vineyards, the profit is mine to have. And so when the time came for him to come claim that that's where they have now rejected him. Yes. That's where they've now said like, I know you did all the work and really graciously allowed us to live in this land, but we're gonna keep all of it for ourselves. That's the scandal of this. That's what I think like the original audience would've set up and like, wait a second here. Like, hold on. They didn't even plant the vineyards themselves. They didn't even build the tower themselves. That's really the force of this that I think we miss when we, when we overemphasize, trying to think through like what the original agricultural arrangements were. 'cause this is painted. Very different than what the original arrangements would've been typical for. Like this is a different scenario and I think intentionally so,  [00:52:09] Jesse Schwamb: and we need those words like rented, at least in English, to help us understand that it didn't belong to them. It wasn't a gift, right? It wasn't as if like it was just turned over in the sense that it belongs to you now do with it what you will. And it's very clear in the passage one, like you said, that the landowner does all those things. So it was a, you know, he completely set it up. I mean, this is just such a beautiful, I think, depiction of the hold of prophetic, you know, understanding of God's word here, but it's very clear that says the, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit. So you're right. The scandal is that they're like, well, obviously. They need to give him his fruits, like  [00:52:48] Tony Arsenal: right.  [00:52:48] Jesse Schwamb: It was all set up before he left on this long journey. He then turned it over to them to care for, and that was really all that they were supposed to do. They had no role in this. And so it does like lead us in into this weird space where it's like, well, well what, what did the Pharisees think they were trying to do themselves? What does actually Jesus commenting on, on their own, like licit on their own initiative here, is he basically saying that not only are they not respecting his sovereignty, but they were trying to claim for themselves what only rightly belongs to God that even their position right. Society in culture as their representatives, God himself, they wanted to take that over for themselves, which he does bring that condemnation upon them in other parts of the scripture. So again, this is really hot. I think it's a, it's both heat and light, but there's no doubt that there's fire to this, right? Because it's a direct indictment that God the father set all of this up. You yourselves are on rented property, but guess what? Even the property that you've rented, I'm not exacting a tax from you as if like you have put forward and grown or supplied or created some kind of profitable outcome here. And I just want a piece of that. He's not even talking about tithing in that sense. What he's basically saying is, none of this belongs to you. Like how? Right? How dare you? None of this is yours. I set all of this up and in fact, because you've done so poor poorly at this, I'm gonna take it away from you and give it to those who actually produce fruit and guess what's gonna be the Gentiles? So it's, there's a wild. Amounts of condemnation packed into a very small story.  [00:54:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. It really is.  [00:54:22] Tenants Add Nothing [00:54:22] Tony Arsenal: Um, there is nothing expected of these tenants. Right. There's no contract, like there's no terms, they, they really add nothing to the, the landowner's land, except I guess maybe they're the ones harvesting these, this fruit. Right. But even that's not explicit in the parable.  [00:54:43] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly.  [00:54:43] Tony Arsenal: Right. Right. He, he does all just to steal your thunder, like he does all the verbs. Yes. All of the ves are done by the landowner.  [00:54:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Right  [00:54:51] Tony Arsenal: on. There is an implication that the, the tenants are somehow like the ones harvesting this, or they're the ones producing the wine, I guess, in the wine vat or the wine press. But at the end of the day. A normal tenant landowner agreement would be, I'm, you're, first of all, you're probably gonna pay me to use this land, right? You're paying me to use this land, and the way you pay me is you're gonna plant the, the gr the crop. You're gonna harvest it. You're gonna make the produce, and all I'm gonna do is let you live on this land. I'm gonna take the pro, like the profit, you're gonna pay me outta that profit. There is nothing asked or expected of these, th

In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse dive deep into Matthew 21:33-46, examining Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants. The hosts unpack how Christ masterfully draws the Pharisees into pronouncing their own condemnation, revealing not merely theological error but intentional usurpation of God's authority. Through careful exegesis, they explore the shocking setup of the parable—where the landowner does all the work while the tenants contribute nothing—and how this mirrors God's sovereign initiative in salvation. The discussion touches on confession, the value of full-time ministry, and the scandal of rejecting the Messiah despite recognizing His authority. This episode challenges listeners to examine whether they, like the Pharisees, attempt to claim God's work as their own. Key Takeaways God Does All the Verbs: The parable emphasizes that the landowner planted, built, protected, and prepared everything—the tenants contributed nothing yet claimed ownership of the fruit. Self-Pronounced Condemnation: Jesus draws the Pharisees into declaring their own judgment, demonstrating that even the unregenerate conscience bears witness to divine justice (Romans 2). Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error: The Pharisees weren't well-intentioned but misguided; they recognized Christ's authority as the heir and deliberately murdered Him to seize His inheritance. The Scandal of Grace: The parable's shocking element is that the landowner prepared everything before leasing the land—far exceeding normal agricultural arrangements and illustrating God's unmerited favor. Ecclesial Support for Ministry: The OPC presbytery's decision to fund a full-time call demonstrates how church structure can honor the ministry of Word and sacrament by freeing ministers from worldly distractions. Particular Repentance Matters: Westminster Confession 15.5 teaches that believers should not content themselves with general repentance but "endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly." The Stone Rejected Becomes Chief: Christ's citation of Psalm 118 reveals that the very rejection by the builders (religious leaders) was God's plan to establish the cornerstone of salvation. Key Concepts God Does All the Verbs The concentration of action verbs attributed solely to the landowner in Matthew 21:33 is theologically significant. The landowner plants, builds, digs, and rents—creating a fully functional, productive vineyard before the tenants ever arrive. This arrangement differs radically from typical first-century agricultural practices, where tenants would lease raw land and develop it themselves, sharing profits with the landowner. Jesus deliberately presents an extraordinary scenario where the tenants receive everything prepared and ready, requiring only stewardship of what already exists. This parallels God's sovereign initiative in election and salvation: believers contribute nothing to their standing before God, receiving instead a fully accomplished redemption. The Pharisees' rebellion wasn't against burdensome requirements but against simply acknowledging God's rightful ownership of what He alone created. Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error The hosts challenge the common sympathetic reading of the Pharisees as well-intentioned legalists who simply got sidetracked. Instead, verse 38 reveals the tenants explicitly recognize the son as heir and plot to murder him to "seize his inheritance." This isn't accidental rejection but calculated rebellion. The Pharisees weren't confused about Jesus's identity or authority—they understood precisely who He claimed to be and deliberately chose to destroy Him rather than submit. This interpretation carries significant weight for understanding the nature of unbelief: it's not primarily intellectual confusion but volitional rebellion. The religious leaders didn't need more evidence or clearer teaching; they needed transformed hearts. This same dynamic appears whenever humans recognize divine truth yet choose self-sovereignty over submission to God's rightful claim on their lives. The Scandal of Grace The parable begins with a scandalous premise that would have startled Jesus's original audience. Unlike normal tenant farming arrangements where landowners simply provided land in exchange for a share of whatever the tenants produced through their own labor, this landowner invests everything. He doesn't just own the property—he plants the vineyard, constructs the protective wall, digs the wine press for production, and builds the watchtower for defense. The tenants receive a turnkey operation requiring minimal effort. This extravagant preparation mirrors God's unmerited favor toward Israel and, by extension, the church. God didn't merely create humanity and wait to see what we would produce; He established covenants, sent prophets, preserved His Word, and ultimately sent His Son—all before requiring any response. The only "payment" demanded is acknowledging His ownership of what He created. The parable thus exposes the absurdity and ingratitude of claiming God's work as our own achievement. Memorable Quotes God does all the verbs. All of the verbs are done by the landowner. There is nothing expected of these tenants—they really add nothing to the landowner's land. Christ is not painting the Pharisees as well-intentioned but ultimately wrong. He's painting them as usurpers who recognize the proper authority and rather than submitting to it, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly. (Westminster Confession 15.5) Transcript Welcome to episode 491 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:12] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.  [00:01:17] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.  [00:01:18] Parable of Tenants [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: So picture this, Tony, your landlord. You've built the perfect vineyard. We're talking wall watchtower, wine, press, the works like what everybody says. Everybody knows you need all those things. You've got it all set up, and then you hand the keys to some tenants. You take a long trip, you go enjoy yourself. And when the harvest rolls around, you send your servants to collect the rent. And shockingly, your tenants, they beat. Stone. Another, the kill a third. So naturally you think, you know what? I'll fix this. Lemme just send more people. That's obviously the problem. There's some kind of just profound misunderstanding about what's going on here and about our relationship in this business. And then when that doesn't work, you send your son now loved ones. If this were a business strategy, we would already be calling hr. But of course it's not a business strategy, it's a parable. And Jesus is telling it to the very people about to prove the parable true. So welcome back to the Reformed Brotherhood because we're in Matthew Chapter 21 and we're gonna be actually getting all the way into the parable of the Vine growers where the patience of God looks, I would say, to almost anybody else, to humanize at least almost reckless until you realize that's exactly the point. So yeah, grab your beverage of choice, grab your Bible, pull the car over, will you? Because this is gonna get real and we're going to reason together. But before we do all of that, let's do a little affirming with or denying against, what do you got?  [00:02:41] Inside Baseball Affirmation [00:02:41] Tony Arsenal: So this is a sort of inside baseball, uh, affirmation. Um, I'm not sharing anything, although it may feel like I'm sharing something that is private and like, uh, like confidential. It's not No, this is good. Um, so I had the opportunity to visit. Um, my presbytery, um, for those who are listeners of the show or people who like, have been with us a long time, um, I was part of a Baptist church. Uh, I've always kind of been a Presbyterian at heart, but, um, our church closed, uh, a little over a year and a half ago now. And, um, uh, I've joined an OPC congregation in membership now. We've been members there for about a year. And, um, so I've been visiting Presbytery, which is the, the meeting of all of the leadership of all of the churches. So we won't do a polity breakdown here, but basically like, it's, it's the regional meeting. It's the regional business meeting or church meeting for a group of churches in the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And so a lot of the meetings, you know, have the normal kind of business type stuff. You have reports from different committee committees and stuff. Um.  [00:03:48] Presbytery Call Debate [00:03:48] Tony Arsenal: Where this is affirmation is coming in here is at this most recent presbytery meeting, um, was pretty heavy on, um, licensing or, or, uh, not licensing on approving men who had received a call to formal ministry within the presbytery. And so in the OPC, and I would imagine that other Presbyterian bodies are not like super different, although I'm sure there's some variation in the OPC. Um, when a church intends to extend a call to a pastor, to a teaching elder, um, to a minister, they must have the call, which is. Is both theological but is also eminently practical. Like the call is a physical piece of paper that details, you know, what the pay is, how much vacation time. So it's kind of a combination between like a theological call and also a contract. Um, the presbytery has to approve that call. And so at this most recent one, there was a couple calls that were more or less uncontroversial. There was no question about them, and they were approved pretty quickly. But there was one call, um, one call to ministry that took, I, I, I didn't time it, but it was probably like four or five hours of debate and discussion in various fashion in order to get to a point where the presbytery could approve the call. So this was a call to a minister who is being called part-time, which is unusual in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, the OPC uh, acknowledges the fact that bivocational tent making ministry is sometimes a necessity, but really views the ministry of the word in sacrament as something that should not have. Distractions. And actually our book of church order talks about, doesn't use the word distraction, I think, but it talks about a, a properly ordered call to a full-time minister includes phrasing that the congregation promises to compensate them in a way that allows them to be free of worldly burdens and cares. And I might have not, not have gotten that wording exactly right. But that's the idea. And so this call was. Explicitly, um, not a full-time call it, they actually took the language out of promising to pay him in a way that he's able to ignore or to not be distracted by worldly care. And that was intentional, but there was a lot of question in discussion at presbytery level about the fact that the call did not include the phrase or the wording of part-time or bivocational. So the conversation started out of like, can this call be modified to include that? So it's explicitly known in this man's call that his calling is part-time, which is both theological, to make sure that the call is properly formatted, but also like very practical that the congregation should acknowledge explicitly that they recognize that this person is not, not going to be putting, you know, 40 hours a week or 50 hours a week towards this position. [00:06:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:06:34] Tony Arsenal: Um. What I'm affirming is where it got to, right? So there was lots of discussion about that. There was some finagling about the retirement package. The OPC recommends that a, a minister be given a retirement contribution of no less than 5% a year of his salaried package. Um, which there's a couple line items that go into that, but 5%, and this was a little bit less than that. And this is what I'm affirming and this, I, I don't know that this is a super widespread thing that would happen all across the, um, the OPC, but it happened in the presbytery of New York and New England this past week, and it's just amazing. And I just, I just want to lay it out there and then I want to hear your reaction. [00:07:13] Funding Full Time Ministry [00:07:13] Tony Arsenal: And I, I wanna hear your reaction as the son of a minister who labored his entire adult, more or less, his entire adult career in ministry, working two or three additional jobs on top of his ministry, the presbytery decided. That because it did not like the idea of a part-time minister. They didn't think that was appropriate. They didn't think that that was good or that that was really the right goal. The presbytery allocated, I'm not gonna say the figures 'cause they're not super germane, but allocated a significant amount of money to be dis to be dispersed to the church for the next three years in order to take what was a part-time call and enable it to become a full-time call. [00:07:54] Jesse Schwamb: Wow.  [00:07:54] Tony Arsenal: And so there are a lot of, there are a lot of church bodies that would say, yeah, we don't love the idea of bi-vocational ministry. You know, we really think it's ideal that a minister could be full-time. Um, they may even put some, some theological freight behind that. Um, I have never encountered a body, um. That was willing to put a sizable amount of money towards essentially supplementing a part-time call to make it full-time. Um, this was just amazing to me, and the candidate was there. I didn't get a chance to talk to him, but I would love to talk to him about what he felt. I, I can just imagine the phone call to his wife who was not, not at presbytery, but to his wife, following the outcome of this to be like, you are never gonna believe what just happened. Right? This is a family who was intending to move across country. Right. He's currently a student at Westminster, California in seminary, uh, California, Westminster Seminary in California, finishing his M Div. They're planning a cross country move into a part-time position where she's probably gonna have to find a job, and then also he's gonna have to find a part-time job. He had the ability to call her on the break and be like, you're never gonna guess what just happened? You're never gonna,  [00:09:09] Jesse Schwamb: it's wild.  [00:09:09] Tony Arsenal: Uh, sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. You're never going to. Believe how faithful God is in this. Right. So I'm interested to hear your reaction to that as the son of a, of a try and quad at times Quad vocational. Yeah,  [00:09:23] Jesse Schwamb: for sure.  [00:09:23] Tony Arsenal: Minister who labored his entire, more or less, his entire adult career, um, working full-time in a call as a part-time, part-time minister. You know, like that's a, that's a crazy situation. So I'm just affirming that again, I don't know how common that kind of thing is in the OPC. I don't wanna make it seem like that's the norm. Um, I actually get the sense that this is probably not the norm, but it was amazing to see and it made me in intensely like. Proud in the right way of being a part of this broader body that would, would so emphasize and so value the ministry of the word and the sacrament, and the importance of a man being able to dedicate himself to that without distraction. That they would put forward this amount of money and this kind of money. They had no reason to do so. And there's no real direct benefit to the presbytery for doing this. I mean, there's an indirect benefit of like not having a church with a part-time minister, but like there's no direct benefit to this. There's no direct return on investments that's gonna come out of this. Um, it was pretty amazing to see. It was, it was, it was super encouraging.  [00:10:28] Jesse Schwamb: That is really encouraging. I, I think it's, there's no doubt that for the called pastor, their heart is in the ministry of the word. That's what they want to be doing. They wanna be doing it all the time and as much time as they possibly can, and they wanna be able to have all of their intentional focus on it. So I. I'm excited for that guy. I mean, that's just an incredible blessing to go in hoping for funding, essentially for a part-time role and to basically be told, no, no, no, no, that's, that's not enough. We want you to be committed to this fully as we know your heart is committed. As we validated that call.  [00:11:00] Why Structure Matters [00:11:00] Jesse Schwamb: I do love being a part of churches, well, lemme say it this way. There is, I think, a benefit of being part of congregations that have like a wide resource network that has like appropriate hierarchy and structure and that can be one of them. I've seen something similar in the Christian Missionary Alliance, which is the church that I'm in, not exactly the same, but I've seen some surprising allocations of resources where they basically said, you know, this is important. Like, it even trumps we're, we're gonna. Allocate or resource something so that this can move forward because it is important in a way that was like better than the person who was bringing it before them could have hoped for. Yeah. And uh, suddenly it's as if everything aligned. And it was really in part because there was this structure to come alongside, to validate as you're saying, and then to authenticate and then again to resource assets that could be used. There's, there's something to be said for that interdependency where there is kind of this hierarchical structure in which all that's happening at a level where things are codified. And again, like there's a structure and a way in which we move through those decisions to make sure that they suit the objective of the entire movement. So I guess there's nothing I'll say, but that's a beautiful thing, isn't it?  [00:12:14] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:12:15] Generosity in Action [00:12:15] Tony Arsenal: It was, it was, it was cool because it was like this, it was like this real. Actualization of the principle of outdoing one another and showing honor. Yeah, sure. Because you know, like the initial debate was like, Hey, you know, I'm not sure we can approve this call because the, the OPCs guidelines tell us not to approve a call that has less than 5% of the retirement benefit. And there was a lot of discussion of like, well, the presbytery can't modify the call, but we don't wanna delay this guy coming in and like, we don't wanna delay his ordination, his installation. And so the initial proposal was a, a. What feels like a large amount of money to me. But after I understood more about the, the budget of what's going on in, in the presbytery was actually a very small amount of money. Started with a very tiny, very modest proposal of basically like supplementing the retirement fund to make sure that like we could, they, I say we, like, I was part of this, I was just observing, but to supplement the retirement fund in a way that allowed the church to still proceed with the call as written, but still also make sure that this person had the appropriate retirement fund. And then that just basically was like, there would be some instruction given to the church that like, you've gotta bump this up in the next budget cycle. Like you've gotta get to the 5%. That's, that's the expectation. It went from that. And like I said, I won't give you the specific numbers, but one of the presbyters and I, I'm, I, um, I, I've known this presbyter from a distance for quite a long time and, and I have an immense amount of respect for him. He stood up and he's like, well, if we're gonna give X, why don't we just give 10 times X instead? And then actually, like the discussion was like, well, is, are we sure that 10 times X is even the right amount? Why don't we have this particular group meet over the lunch break and figure out whether that's the right number and then come back after lunch and we'll vote on it. And then they came back after lunch and it was actually a number that was even greater than 10 times X. So it was like this exercise in like. This very small proposal that was still imminently generous, right? The presbytery has no obligation to do this. There's no obligation from any of the presbyters to stand up and say like, we should. We should supplement this fund. They would've been well within their right, and no one would've looked, I think. I think some people would've been frustrated by it, but I don't think anyone would've looked sideways at it or thought it was sinful. If the presbytery just said like, we can't approve this call. You guys are gonna have to come back with it and we'll vote on it at the next presbytery. Like that would've been problematic. This, this kind of poor guy who's coming outta seminary, his call and his beginning of employment would've been delayed, but like. That would've been good and orderly, but instead they were like, one, we don't want this pulpit to stay empty longer. We don't wanna disadvantage this guy who's just getting done with seminary. We want him to get started. We don't wanna discourage him. So here's a small proposal, a very modest amount of money that we can put forward for this purpose. And then it was like, let's just keep seeing how much closer to a real full-time call we can get. And they finally came back and said like, we're gonna do this. We're gonna do this in a wise fashion. They structured it. So like the first year he gets more, the second year he gets a little bit less. The third year the church gets a little bit less with the idea that like each year the church should be adjusting their budget to compensate and get this guy to that with the, the hope that like with a full-time minister, they're able to grow their congregation to the point where they can support a full-time minister. So it was just this really cool, super encouraging exercise. And what I loved about it is the only real debate that was going on was about do we need to do more? There was no one being like, wait a second, why are we, why are we putting more money to this? The whole thing was like, is this actually enough to accomplish what we think God wants to do with this person's call? Because if, if God is truly calling this man to this, this particular church, and we believe that he is. Then what do we as a, as a people of God need to do to enable that call to look like what we actually believe calls to ministry are supposed to look like, which is a full-time call to ministry that is undistracted by the cares of the world. What do we need to do? The answer in this case was like, I think we need to put a sizable amount of money to it. Um, it's a, I mean, and again. I'm not gonna say it on the air. It was not a small chunk of change. Um, it was, it was a, it was a large amount of money that was devoted to this cause and that just goes to show how much this body values the importance of a full-time minister of the word, so. [00:16:50] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:16:51] OPC Love and Recommendation [00:16:51] Tony Arsenal: That's enough about that. I, I could gush about how proud I am to be a part of this body and how encouraged I am and how amazing it was and how awesome this, this guy, how, how much this guy must be thanking God for the providence and like, this is the last thing. I'll say this, this young man younger than me, I think he's graduating seminary. I saw him across the room. He looks like he's probably in his mid twenties, right? Young guy. He's got a wife doesn't have kids yet coming into this ministry, not only is he coming into this ministry, but as a Presbyterian minister, when he's installed as the minister of this church. He will be joining this body of presbyters as the, as his brothers like. He is not a member of the local church. He's a member of the presbytery, which is the regional church. So now he's coming into this fully supported by his brothers in the presbytery that he saw go to the mat to make sure he was properly taken care of, that the congregation was not unintentionally taking advantage of his labor, but also that he knows that all of these men are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that his ministry is successful and edifies the church like that is. Uh, I don't want to gush on Presbyterianism too much, but like that is Presbyterianism at peak form, right? This is the body of elders making sure that every church in the region, even the ones they're not directly ministering in, has what it needs to succeed and to honor God and to do what needs to happen. So I'm affirming the presbytery of New York and New England and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, I have been so blessed by knowing many of these presbyters. I've been so blessed by being a part of the congregation that I am. There are lots of really great churches and really great denominations out there. If you are looking for a church and there is an OPC congregation in your area, absolutely go check it out. I know it feels stuffy sometimes, and I will admit, like sometimes it feels a little bit overly traditional in terms of like just the vibe of the congregation,  [00:18:52] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:18:52] Tony Arsenal: But press past that because I don't think, I don't think you will find, um. You may find lots of congregations that are as faithful. I don't think you're gonna find many that are more faithful than your average OPC congregation. So I could be wrong. I just, I just love the OPC. I just really, really love it. So that's my affirmation. What do you got for us, Jesse?  [00:19:18] Denial Catholic Confession Math [00:19:18] Jesse Schwamb: I think I got denial, which is maybe a little bit unusual for me. [00:19:21] Tony Arsenal: As long as you're not denying the OPCI think we're fine.  [00:19:23] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's, it's not, it is church related and I, I'll try to keep it short 'cause I think I can make this way longer than it, it probably should be, but lemme think how to phrase this. So, I don't know with a devil negative, I guess when I'm a denying against is maybe not enough confession by your own standard. So the, I'm gonna try to make this so brief. I, I just happened to be out with my wife this afternoon and we had to run errands. We got stuck in traffic and this gave me longer than usual to sit in front of our. Very local and very large Catholic church. So I happen to be looking at their sign. It's a very large congregation. I've been actually been in this one on a couple of occasions for funerals. So not only do I know its size and scope, but again, if you get, if you get on this road at the wrong time on the Lord's day, you're gonna be stuck for a long time because there are so many people that attend. I say that because I noticed on the sign that there were three times for mass on the Lord's Day. So that also says something about the number of people coming through. And then on the sign though, underneath it said for confessions, go to our website. Mm-hmm. So I was like, man, I gotta lick this up because I can't tell if they're telling me I can confess on the website or if it's go to the website for the times. And I said to my wife, only half jokingly, if I can confess online, I'm gonna confess something. So I went to, I went to the website and, and sure enough it was almost disappointingly. It was just the times.  [00:20:45] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:46] Jesse Schwamb: Here's what I've found interesting, which just launched me into this like deep rabbit hole. There were three times for confession. Two of those times were just a half an hour, and the third time was an hour. So, uh, what I did was I went through, actually, I think what they had on there was, was three full hours a week. It was a little bit confusing, but I think it was three full hours. Now I think about it. So I went back, I just couldn't help myself, Tony. So I started to think, alright, let's say. I think it's fair to assume  [00:21:15] Tony Arsenal: math, Jesse is kicking in right now. Yes. You're gonna calculate how many minutes per, per person is what you're doing. I'm thinking, ah,  [00:21:22] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it's something like that. So what I thought was, I don't think it's, uh, I was gonna be conservative. I wanna be fair. I wanna be fair. So, and now we should say like, I think most people realize that the Catholic understanding of confession and the Protestant one is, is very different. The Catholic sacrament of confession is the right through which Catholics are gonna confess their sins to a priest receive absolution, and it's gonna restore the relationship with God in the church. And, and they're gonna believe that the priest acts as a person of Christ and is bound by the seal of confession and an absolute kind of obligation. Uh, of course never to reveal what was disclosed during that process. So, by the way, the website that I went to, lovely instructions. I mean, I was like, wow. I was reading it to my wife who was, uh, not familiar with this at all, and she was like, they can make you do stuff. And I was like, well, yeah. I mean, obviously like there's, there's a portion of this where there's contrition or penant penance. It could be a prayer, it could be act of charity, like all kinds of stuff. So I went back and I thought. I don't think it's unreasonable that there's 350 persons that would say, let's say an average, uh, that would wanna take part of confession. Now, let's say that they did that at, at least monthly, just once a month. And, and I don't know how people's conviction is on that, but I'm gonna say conservatively once a month. Let's say that, and I don't think this is unreasonable, Tony, but you tell me. Let's say you're, you're trucking, you're moving through confession. Let's say it's five minutes a piece. So we're up to 1,750 minutes, uh, per month. That's the demand on the priest because I was, I was looking at this time and I was thinking something is strange here to me, so. That was the demand then, and I'll spare you the other math, which could be very long and un uninteresting. I'm coming up with, you'd need 2.24, two and a quarter priests, which of course you can't have a quarter priests or a quarter person for any reason. So you'd hire, you'd hire three priests, which satisfy the demand if, and the major assumptions here, that is like everybody can't show up at the same time. Obviously, I'm assuming that like everybody has their own time, they're spreading it out. So everybody gets the confession, but it's just five minutes. And I, I have no idea. I mean, if you're a Luther, that's certainly not sufficient time.  [00:23:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:23:20] Jesse Schwamb: And you would need three priests. Now here's the thing that I just kind of backed into that, besides like three being like, okay, that, that's, you would need three priests just to satisfy this congregation. If they're confessing for five minutes, once per month. Uh, by the way, if you said, well, half the congregation is going to go weekly, uh, then you, you would double the number of priests you need to 5.98 or six. But here's, here's the bottom line for me. This is why the denial comes in about maybe not enough, is. If you were just to distill that down to like, if you could have one priest cover that time, that there's a demand for like 779.4 hours, or excuse me, minutes of confession, that priest would only be allocating approximately like seven and a half percent of their working hours, their work toward handling confession. This seems like not enough confession given the standards of confession in the Catholic church. And again, I know that I'm, I'm now allocating that to one priest and I just told everybody you need three. That's true. So if you had these three now, if you hired three just to meet the demand, that would only be about like three and a half or a little under three and a half percent of their combined time. So the denial is Catholics, I think, unless I'm way off in some of my assumptions here, you might not be confessing enough by your own standards because  [00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, that seems like not enough time.  [00:24:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:24:39] Ritual Faithfulness Explained [00:24:39] Tony Arsenal: I mean, I think, um. I don't want to be too bombastic here, but I think,  [00:24:46] Jesse Schwamb: I think I already started this on this  [00:24:48] Tony Arsenal: path. Maybe this, maybe this isn't all that bombastic. Um, because this is so much about ritual and actually I say this is gonna sound really, we, we go, but trying to think from the Roman Catholic perspective, it's actually not, and I'll I'll tell you a brief story, uh, to explain it. Um, a lot of Roman Catholics are just going through the motions. [00:25:13] Jesse Schwamb: That's true.  [00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: But the point, the, the, the point of contention actually is that going through the motions is valuable for the Roman Catholic, right? So I, I knew this, uh, this young woman when I was in college who was a Roman Catholic, and we had many discussions about, about the differences between Protestantism and and Roman Catholicism. And what I came to understand is that going to mass for her. Itself was an act of faith. And so for the Roman Catholic, the concept of, of faith is different than the concept that Protestants operate under. So for the Roman Catholic who, um, goes to mass, even when they feel like they're, like, when they think they're just going through the motions, going through the motions is itself the act of faith. And that's because for most of Roman Catholics, most of Roman Catholicism, faith really equals faithfulness, right? So, so doing the act is the act of faithfulness. Doing the act is faith. Where for the Protestant, like faith is about belief and trust and knowledge. Like it's, it's an. Not entirely intellectual, but it's, it's an inward thing for the Roman Catholic faith is an out is primarily an outward thing. It's what you do, it's how you act. It's faith formed in love. It's faith formed in charity.  [00:26:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:26:37] Tony Arsenal: So I think most Roman Catholics going to obligatory confession first. I think once a month is probably like, probably more frequent than most Roman Catholics go to mass or go to confession. Um, I thought I read a stat that it was like every six months is, is pretty average and I think that's what's required by the church maybe even once a year is, is required by the church. Um, I think like most Roman Catholics go into the, the confessional booth and like father forgive me for I've sinned. It's been such and such a number of days since my last confession. Right. And they may bring up a couple particular things that they've done and, and then I think the priest commonly absolves them of all of their sins. Like, almost like in an omnibus fashion and then prescribes their acts of penance, which is it, it like, honestly, it's probably things they should already be doing as a faithful Catholic saying Hail Marys and doing our fathers and acts of charity and things like that. So I think your math is probably right. [00:27:39] Protestant Repentance Particular [00:27:39] Tony Arsenal: I think your, your theory that more confession is probably like, I'm gonna read this from, uh, the Westminster confession, just to, just to say it here, is, this is chapter 15, which is titled of Repentance Under Life. And this is, uh, this is section five or paragraph five. It says, men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but is every man's duty to endeavor, to repent of his particular sins, particularly. And I think that's just such a beautifully phrased sentence like. Not only is it like potent theologically, but like, it just, it just feels good, like in terms of like the English language to repent of your particular sins, particularly. And like the idea is yes, Protestant reform, Christians affirm a general repentance from sin, right? We repent of our sin before the father, uh, as a result of our, of our coming to faith in Christ. And as part of our sanctification, we mortify our sin and we, Viv we are vivified by the spirit and repentance falls in that ongoing sanctification process. And there is this general repentance of like, I repent of the fact that I'm a sinner and that I commit sins, but there is this element in the reformed faith of like, I should be confessing to God. And I think by extension, like we should be confessing to our fellow Christians, our particular sins, our individual sins, and we should be doing that on particular occasion. And I think like. The Luther style confession of like going into the confessor and confessing like every particular sin. Particularly I think most Roman Catholic priests would, priests. Priests would probably have the same reaction Tobits did where he was like, get outta here. Like, come on dude. Like just go live your life and like deal with it. I think that's probably the reaction most Catholic priests would have. But yeah, I think you're right. Like if we're really talking about like. Five, five minutes of confession once a month and that somehow having some sort of spiritual efficacy. I'm not sure I buy that math. Like I think you're, you're probably spot on.  [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:29:47] Confession Hours Oddities [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: I just was curious about how many priests would be required and then the allocation of the duties. By the way, you are right. So I, because I had to check on this, the, the fourth letter in council of 1215 does say that the church requires confession of any grave or mortal sins at least once a year. But the church, yeah, strongly encourages more frequent confession as a spiritual practice, even for, of course, like the venial or the less serious sins in their eyes. So yeah, my thought here was just that. I think it's actually undervalued by way of the math. Like the, as the kids say, the math just isn't math thing for me on this one. But I was more curious about, since this is one of the seven sacraments, even if you just said like, well, it should have at least one seven of the allocation. That's like, what? Like something like 14%. And so this is, um, almost half of that. I just found it a little bit, a little bit odd and yeah, I think you'd have to be, uh, so in other words, when I looked at the, basically, here's the bottom line. When I looked at the hours for confession one, there were weird times and uh, two, I was like, that doesn't seem like enough hours. Like, it was just more like that. Like how that's like saying like, Hey, the post office is open three hours a week, and by the way, one of those hours is from seven to eight o'clock on Friday. Like they had some hours. One hour just on Friday was like, I guess that's the way you wanna start your weekend is like, let's get all of this off my chest. Yeah. And, and do it. Right. And the last thing I'll say by the way, is you're correct. When you look at the instruction they give you, and this is common of course, toward the end, when they say like, here's how you like wrap up your part. Actually everybody should go read, go to the local, local Catholic church website and read the instructions. 'cause in some ways they're just interesting and kind of, um, I don't wanna say funny 'cause I'm not making fun. I'm just saying like, they have to give you instruction if you've never done it before. And so most of us are not really probably familiar with the process and they give you explicit instruction and toward the end it's like, here's how you kinda like hang up the call with the priest. And it's like you said, you know, these are my sins and all others, would you be willing to forgive? So you're right. Right. They just kinda wrap them all up because it's sins of omission, sense of commission, it's all to be together. But I, I wonder, you gotta think there's people in there that are like. The priests are like, okay, man, just yeah. Wrap, come on, wrap, wrap it up.  [00:31:55] Confession Timing Talk [00:31:55] Jesse Schwamb: And other people that come in are just like, you know, forgive me father. And uh, lastly to your point, when they give you instruction about how you should start, of course you're always to signify how long it's been since your last confession. Right. Confession. And they say parenthetically, like, reference the days, weeks, months, or years. So you're right. There are gonna be people that probably do it very frequently and probably people who do it infrequently still, I would say I just couldn't believe for a church this large, that there was just three hours a week.  [00:32:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:21] Jesse Schwamb: For everybody else.  [00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:23] Vance and Papal Authority [00:32:23] Tony Arsenal: This leads me to two very brief sub, uh, denials slash affirmations. Uh, I don't know if you saw this, um, this is not a political statement, right? I, I have lots of feelings and thoughts about the current administration and I think most of my feelings and thoughts would surprise. Everybody. But I thought it was hilarious because JD Vance, who is a Roman Catholic, uh, confessed Roman Catholic part of the Roman Catholic Church, uh, he ha I, I'm not sure if I'm affirming or denying this, there was this funny, uh, funny exchange. I think he was at doing like a, doing like a TPU, I don't know, speech. He was doing a speech at some conservative event and he said something like, I think that the Pope should be more careful when he makes theological statements. I'm wanna be like, do you understand what the pope is in your religion? That was one of my sub denials. Uh, I don't remember what the other one is, so it must not have been that important. It'll come back to me at the worst possible moment and I will try very hard not to interrupt our show for it, but I probably will fail.  [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:33:25] Reading Matthew 21 [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, we, we gotta get to some scripture because. We're, we're doing this old school style where we take like half the time and just talk about affirmations. It's true in house. It's true. Which is great fun. But let's, let's get back to Matthew 21. And I, I know we did this last time, but I am gonna rock through the passage 'cause of course, that's the best part of any of our discussion, is actually hearing from, from the Holy Spirit through the scripture, uh, which he's given to us. So this is, uh, Matthew 21, starting in verse 33. And you're gonna hear the, the whole thing right here. Uh, this is Jesus speaking. Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it and built a tower and rented it out to vine growers and went on a journey. Now, when the high risk time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit, and the vine growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent another group of slaves larger than the first, and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them saying they will respect my son. But when the vine growers saw the sun, they said among themselves, this is the heir. Come let us kill him and seize his inheritance, and they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to other vine growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons. Jesus said to them, did you ever read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls in the stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they understood that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds because they're regarding him to be a prophet. [00:35:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:35:30] Pharisees Condemn Themselves [00:35:30] Tony Arsenal: This is like a super heavy parable. Right. And we talked a lot last week about how like the point of this parable is not necessarily to try to instruct the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Like it's not to instruct the people who were going to reject Christ, uh, the, the builders who would reject the cornerstone. It's really a parable to teach those. Who are observing this process happening. But I think it's, I, I think it's really interesting just listening to you read this and reading through it, and I guess this is a question I haven't asked and I, I need to study a little bit more. It's crazy to me in verse 41, um, Christ seems the, the, the, um, Matthew seems to say here, and maybe I need to do a little bit more Greek study, so bear with me and, and have grace if I'm wrong here. Matthew seems to say that like Christ asks the people he's speaking to, the Pharisees he's speaking to, what is he gonna do to these people? And the Pharisees answer, he's gonna put those wretches to a miserable death.  [00:36:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right?  [00:36:37] Tony Arsenal: Like the people listening to this parable understand the outcome, like they understand the. The consequence that the, the, the vineyard owner or the vineyard tenant tenants are facing based on their lack of faithfulness to the covenant. To me, that is like a really striking part of this parable. And, and it's not even like the parable proper, but like the striking element of the context of this is that nobody listening to this parable, including the Pharisees that this parable has basically spoken against, nobody fails to see the gravity of the consequence of rejecting God's emissary, like rejecting the Messiah. That to me is like a really, I dunno, paradigmatic. Portion of this that I think we need to grapple with. This is not an unclear, an unclear outcome. This is not, this is not masked or vague or OPA opaque. Like everybody understands, the people who reject the Messiah are going to face dire and eternal consequences for that act. [00:37:48] Jesse Schwamb: That does make this really interesting, doesn't it? Because it's not just entirely like Romans one adventures or even Romans two. It's that this is what Jesus does and he does it in a profound way that's not trickery like I think kinda like you're saying like the lead up to this isn't as if he's even leading the witness. He's making it very clear, all like the parameters of the story and the characters involved and what should be the proper judgment. And it's not as if like they start saying, they're like, oh, we shouldn't say anything more like we, we plead the fifth because it's gonna condemn ourselves. He draws his audience in to producing and pronouncing like their own sentence. It's very much like, I think I mentioned this last time, the prophet Nathan and David, isn't it? It's the exact same. Yeah. And the verdict is unanswerable, like even in its own terms. These other, like these other vine growers, prefigures of course like the inclusion of the Gentiles and the apostolic office. But I like that what Jesus does here, even before he gets to that point, is he extorts from them an acknowledgement of the punishment which awaited them. And so in this way there's like, I think the Puritans use this passage a lot actually to demonstrate that the natural conscience even of like the unregenerate, still bears witness to divine justice. That's Romans two. Like they, they can't get out from underneath it and Jesus isn't using any trickery on them to get them to say this thing. They are compelled in their own way, even being unregenerate to, like you said, even as they're rejecting the Messiah to recognize that punishment is due these characters in the story, even as they perceive at the end that they are those characters. [00:39:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:22] Jesse Schwamb: Saying we'll receive the judgment.  [00:39:24] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:25] Usurpers Not Misguided [00:39:25] Tony Arsenal: And I think too, like, um, this is kind of one of those chicken or the egg scenarios, right? Like Christ is both recognizing the intention of their heart as well as prophesying. And, and not just prophesying, but like inception level prophesying the, the outcome of the intention of their heart. And so like, again, like we've, we spent a whole week kind of like leading into the parable and now we spent a whole week, we're gonna spend a whole week again kind of leading into the parable. This is such a deep parable, and that like Christ is not just laying bare. The fact that the, the people who were going to reject him were doing so out of this sort of like attempt and intention of usurping the kingdom of God for their own purposes. I think that brings a layer to this that we don't often appreciate in. Christ's interaction with the Pharisees. I think sometimes, and maybe this is because I just listened to an episode of where Matt Whitman on the 10 minute Bible hour talked about this. I think sometimes we actually have a tendency to sort of be sympathetic to the Pharisees where we think, you know, they were, they were just trying to obey God's law and they got a little sideways on it and you know, they were putting these boundaries in place, but they were doing it in this sort of like misguided attempt to protect the people. Christ actually here seems to contradict that in that the comparison he's making is not to a, a well-intentioned group of people who just get it wrong, but he's painting the Pharisees, the, the religious leaders, the Sadducees, the chief priests. He's painting them as these usurpers who recognize the proper authority of right. The master and his emissaries and ultimately of his son, they recognize this proper authority and rather than submitting to it and submitting to the covenant obligations that they, they already actually agreed to, instead of doing that, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own right. It's not just that they do the wrong thing, it's that they recognize the heir, which is Christ. They recognize this heir and they kill him to try to take his place. That is a really heavy element of this parable. Christ is not painting. Um, the, the, the Pharisees here, the, the religious leaders. He's not painting them as um, well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong, which is I think a lot of times, and I think there's reason to do this right. I'm not being overly critical and I've done this, I've actually done this myself, and I think there's some. Space for it. Like the Pharisees were wrong, but they were wrong, kind of in the right direction sometimes. Um, Christ is not really on board with that, at least in this parable. Right. This isn't about them thinking that the heir was a threat, and so killing the threat in, you know, inadvertently this is them absolutely seeing who the hair, who the heir is, and intentionally deciding to reject that heir and to murder him and to try to take his inheritance. Mm-hmm. That's an affront to not only the heir who they murder, but an affront to the owner of the vineyard himself, which of course in this parable is figured to be God the father primarily. But God in sort of general terms, like the whole Godhead, um, with Christ as the second Adam has, as his representative, as his heir. This is a really heavy parable and I think where this comes into play for us in our own Christian life is. Are there times where we. Sort of do the same thing in refusing to, maybe it's tie into your denial a little bit. Like refusing to acknowledge our own sinfulness, refusing to acknowledge the ways that God has provided for us. Um, do we at times look at what we have and lay claim to it as though it is our own inheritance that we've taken? Um, right. Do we kind of crucify the son of God anew in, in refusing to repent of our sins particularly? I dunno. I think those are some open questions for us to kind of explore as we dig into this a bit more. [00:43:54] Jesse Schwamb: And that may relate as well to, well eventually at some point, I dunno, like 2040, get to like the parable of the talents. There's some similarity there with a little bit, right? You're saying? I think you're right.  [00:44:06] God Does All the Verbs [00:44:06] Jesse Schwamb: And where I think we can anchor some of that is in those first couple of verses. I'm really always impressed by really the number of action verbs that are packed within, like that just initial statement of Jesus explaining the situation. [00:44:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:44:19] Jesse Schwamb: So he sets it all up and he's saying there's a planting that goes on, this landowner puts up a wall, digs a wine press. Builds a tower and then RINs it. So there's all these like amazing things being done, all this action verb. And I, I think in part why he comes against the Pharisees so hard in the same way that we're looking at like the parable that, uh, the, uh, talents for instance of saying like, what did you do with that was entrusted to you was like this great treasure which Christ has entrusted or God has entrusted to his people, which is, is the gospel essentially is, is all a prophetic witness, is like the truth of who God is and his revelation of himself. And so I think. The first thing we gotta see in those verbs is that there's this emphasis that the vineyard was God's sovereign creation. You know, he plants it, he chose it, he established it. Israel didn't plant herself. She was planted. And that sovereign initiative is foundational, I think in, like you're saying, the parables indictment, because these vine growers, they don't possess anything that they did not receive. Right. You know, they did not find a vineyard already planted, but God himself made it from the wilderness that all his glory, all the glory might be his. So. I think it's helpful for us to observe that the church is always the planting of the Lord and that no congregation flourishes that is not first planted by God. And so there is a major offense here when those who are to care for it, who know, like you're saying, that they ought to care for it, who understand something about the hierarchy and the way it has been entrusted to them. Not to only break that covenant, but then seek to try to usurp the power in the roles of those whom they should be, quite frankly, in our own language, like under shepherds too. And so it starts with all, all those verbs. Like I think we could probably spend a. A lot of times just speaking about what does it mean? Why? Why is there all this explicit in particular language about the fact that there's a hedge and there's a press besides just these are part in piece mail or part and parcel of what it means to have a vineyard, apparently, but that they're all part of this narrative of God talking about how he protects and cares for his people and sets them in a place and chooses them and is particular about the construction and does so with great volition and authority and care and concern and creative ability. And then again, you have those who are meant there to do the very job that he's entrusted them with. And not only are they not doing that, and of course you're right. Jesus elsewhere, comes in, comes in hot, right, with a Pharisees saying like, listen, you set burdens on people's backs that you yourselves cannot lift. You're twice as in the hell as anybody else, and that's who you are. Yeah. It's not just hypocrisy, but you're literally setting people up to fail in this. So you can see how you're right. It's not just like, guys, I appreciate that. Like you wanted to set up some additional boundaries and maybe you took it a little bit too far. This parable is just scorched earth. It's, it's nuclear. Yeah.  [00:47:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:47:11] Scandalous Vineyard Setup [00:47:11] Tony Arsenal: And you know, I think, um, we are obviously gonna spend another week on this 'cause we still have not really addressed a single verse in this parable. I, I think like a lot of ink has been spilled on explaining sort of like the feal agricultural arrangements of this passage. What it represents. M my understanding is. A typical arrangement would be that a, a landowner would basically just lease out land and the tenants would be responsible for the planting, for the development. Right. And the, the, the landowner would essentially just collect a portion of whatever they produce. Right. This parable is actually taking this a step further. Exactly. That it's not as though the landowner just says like, all right, you can use this land. Right. And I own the land, so I get a portion of the pro, the profit. He's actually done all the work. Yes. And all that. The, all that the, the tenants need to do essentially is reap the harvest and then provide the portion of the harvest that belongs to the landowner, and so there is a greater investment. Of the landowner into this land than would be expected. We've commented in the past about how a lot of times the, the parables start on sort of a premise of shock. Like there's a, there's an element of the setup of the, of the parable where the audience would kind of like sit back and gasp or kind of be like, wait a second. Like that's not normal. Right. In the parable of the, the, um, lost son, it was the idea that like the son demanded his inheritance. And that wasn't the shocking part. The shocking part was that the father just granted it. Right. Or, um, the lost sheep, like the, there's actually a sort of a shocking element to the fact that like the, the land, the like sheep owner would just go get this other sheep. So we've, we've commented on there's kind of like. There's sort of like a scandalous setup. The scandalous setup in this is not that the land has been leased to tenants, right? It's that the land has been prepared for the tenants before it was leased out in the first place. And I think that's something we might miss if we read over this too quickly, is. The landowner has prepared everything for these, these tenants.  [00:49:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:49:31] Tony Arsenal: So the, the, at the, the punchline of the parable where they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of, um, sovereignty and maybe a lowercase s in the, in the context of the parable, they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty and the rightful claim of the tenant or of the landowner on the, the profit of the land. And sort of like highlighter emphasized by the fact that they actually didn't do any of the work. There's a certain kind of like Amer, like American rugged individualism where we're kind of like, yeah, like if I planted all the crops, then it's kind of lame that this guy's coming in expecting to take a portion of it, right? Like, yeah, I guess he owns the land, so maybe he gets a little piece of it, but like, who does he think he is? All of that already is already short circuited. Like I. The, these tenants are not actually, um, portrayed as doing anything in this parable. That's right. Like they just lease the land. They, they, um, and leased is not really like the right. The right word, the, the Greek word is omi, which is like he gave over the land to them. Um, when we say leased, we have this idea that like the tenants pay to use the land and then like part of their contract is that whatever profits they reap, uh, off the land goes back to the, to the landowner. This is really more like the landowner graciously allowed them to live on this land, and the only payment he required was that they would eventually provide him part of the profit back. Like he's planted the land, he's put up the fence around it. He dug the wine press so that they could make a product out of it. He built the tower so it would be defended. Yes. And he gave it over to them essentially just to like live on until it was time for the harvest. And all he is asking for is basically like, alright, so this is my land. I've planted the vineyards, the profit is mine to have. And so when the time came for him to come claim that that's where they have now rejected him. Yes. That's where they've now said like, I know you did all the work and really graciously allowed us to live in this land, but we're gonna keep all of it for ourselves. That's the scandal of this. That's what I think like the original audience would've set up and like, wait a second here. Like, hold on. They didn't even plant the vineyards themselves. They didn't even build the tower themselves. That's really the force of this that I think we miss when we, when we overemphasize, trying to think through like what the original agricultural arrangements were. 'cause this is painted. Very different than what the original arrangements would've been typical for. Like this is a different scenario and I think intentionally so,  [00:52:09] Jesse Schwamb: and we need those words like rented, at least in English, to help us understand that it didn't belong to them. It wasn't a gift, right? It wasn't as if like it was just turned over in the sense that it belongs to you now do with it what you will. And it's very clear in the passage one, like you said, that the landowner does all those things. So it was a, you know, he completely set it up. I mean, this is just such a beautiful, I think, depiction of the hold of prophetic, you know, understanding of God's word here, but it's very clear that says the, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit. So you're right. The scandal is that they're like, well, obviously. They need to give him his fruits, like  [00:52:48] Tony Arsenal: right.  [00:52:48] Jesse Schwamb: It was all set up before he left on this long journey. He then turned it over to them to care for, and that was really all that they were supposed to do. They had no role in this. And so it does like lead us in into this weird space where it's like, well, well what, what did the Pharisees think they were trying to do themselves? What does actually Jesus commenting on, on their own, like licit on their own initiative here, is he basically saying that not only are they not respecting his sovereignty, but they were trying to claim for themselves what only rightly belongs to God that even their position right. Society in culture as their representatives, God himself, they wanted to take that over for themselves, which he does bring that condemnation upon them in other parts of the scripture. So again, this is really hot. I think it's a, it's both heat and light, but there's no doubt that there's fire to this, right? Because it's a direct indictment that God the father set all of this up. You yourselves are on rented property, but guess what? Even the property that you've rented, I'm not exacting a tax from you as if like you have put forward and grown or supplied or created some kind of profitable outcome here. And I just want a piece of that. He's not even talking about tithing in that sense. What he's basically saying is, none of this belongs to you. Like how? Right? How dare you? None of this is yours. I set all of this up and in fact, because you've done so poor poorly at this, I'm gonna take it away from you and give it to those who actually produce fruit and guess what's gonna be the Gentiles? So it's, there's a wild. Amounts of condemnation packed into a very small story.  [00:54:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. It really is.  [00:54:22] Tenants Add Nothing [00:54:22] Tony Arsenal: Um, there is nothing expected of these tenants. Right. There's no contract, like there's no terms, they, they really add nothing to the, the landowner's land, except I guess maybe they're the ones harvesting these, this fruit. Right. But even that's not explicit in the parable.  [00:54:43] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly.  [00:54:43] Tony Arsenal: Right. Right. He, he does all just to steal your thunder, like he does all the verbs. Yes. All of the ves are done by the landowner.  [00:54:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Right  [00:54:51] Tony Arsenal: on. There is an implication that the, the tenants are somehow like the ones harvesting this, or they're the ones producing the wine, I guess, in the wine vat or the wine press. But at the end of the day. A normal tenant landowner agreement would be, I'm, you're, first of all, you're probably gonna pay me to use this land, right? You're paying me to use this land, and the way you pay me is you're gonna plant the, the gr the crop. You're gonna harvest it. You're gonna make the produce, and all I'm gonna do is let you live on this land. I'm gonna take the pro, like the profit, you're gonna pay me outta that profit. There is nothing asked or expected of these, th

Krista examines how the Founders took for granted a biblical moral framework. They never imagined our country would be overthrown by secularism or activist Muslims pushing for parallel societies that reject assimilation. Krista reads Dr. Albert Mohler's 2024 article, “What Is Missing from Our Constitutional Order?” and explores why the American experiment in religious liberty needs boundaries. Read the article: https://christoverall.com/article/concise/what-is-missing-from-our-constitutional-order-our-government-should-acknowledge-christianity

At Westview's first "Options in Christian Education Night," Pastor Brett argues for why Christians ought to pursue an explicitly Christian education for their children. If you would like to also hear the introductions from the schools, send an email through our contact page to request the audio.

April 21, 2026 Daily Devotional: “Standing Ground”1 Peter 5:8-9 ​ ​"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith,knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." ​ When a lion roars in the wild, its prey often freezes in terror. In our spiritual lives, fear can do the same thing—it paralyzes our prayer life, our joy, and our purpose. Peter's instruction isn't to run away in a panic, but to stand firm. ​Resistance in the Christian life isn't about having "super-strength"; it's about positioning. When you stand firm in your faith, you aren't standing on your own merits—you are standing on the finished work of Jesus. The lion roars at you, but he has to look at the Lion of Judah standing behind you. The strategy is don't freeze, but focus!​ One of the enemy's greatest lies is: "You are the only one going through this." Isolation is where the "devouring" happens. Peter shatters that illusion by reminding us of our brethren. Whether it's a believerfacing intense persecution in another country or a friend across town battling depression, the "kind of suffering" is shared. There is an incredible, quiet strength in knowing that your endurance is part of a much larger story. Your victory over a temptation or a fear today is a victory of shared struggle for the whole Body of Christ.​ Notice that the lion is "looking" for someone to devour. This implies he isn't all-powerful; he is opportunistic; his roar is limited. He looks for thedistracted, the isolated, and the fearful. By staying sober-minded and clear-headed and also watchful, you take away his opportunity. He can make noise, but he cannot snatch you out of God's hand. ​Where have you been spiritually distracted? Bring that area before God now. Stand alongside your Christian community and reach out to a fellow believer this week and share your struggles, knowing they, too, have a "roar" they are facing. Use the Word, when tempted or afraid, quote Scripture. Jesus used the Word in the wilderness to send the tempter away. ​What is one specific truth you can "stand on ground" today when you feel the pressure of the world closing in? Identify one "noise" in your life right now, it could be a recurring worry or a discouraging thought. Explicitly label it as a "roar." Instead of dwelling on it, pivot your focus to a specific truth from Scripture that contradicts it.​

Duncan, Eddie and Lee return with another episode of Shoot and Scoot, the Flames of War, Checkpoint Charlie and Team Yankee wargaming podcast. This episode we talk about what we have been painting and playing and answer our patron's questions.

Hour 4 of Baskin and Phelps

7 takeaways from this study Bring your whole self to God. Treat prayer, worship and daily life as korban — “offering,” or that which comes near — by being fully present, not half‑hearted. Let love cost you something. Choose costly, inconvenient acts of love (time, energy, money) as your “fragrant offering” to God. Do every task as unto the LORD. Whether cleaning, working, or serving, act as if God Himself is your boss. Practice servant leadership. If you lead (home, work, ministry), lead by lowering yourself — serving listening, and bearing others' burdens. Love your nearest neighbors first. Apply “love your neighbor as yourself” to spouse, children, roommates, and close friends before “the world.” Die to self daily. Regularly ask, “What part of my pride, comfort, or control needs to ‘get on the altar' today?” Live as God's dwelling place. Remember you are now a living tabernacle; carry God's presence into your workplace, neighborhood, and relationships. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Messiah also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. Ephesians 5:1–2 NASB 1995 This is not an abstract idea. It is rooted in the concrete pattern God gave Israel in the Torah, especially in the מִשְׁכָּן Mishkan (“dwelling place,” the Tabernacle) and the קָרְבָּנוֹת korbanot (“offerings,” the things that approach). What does it really look like to “imitate God” in love today? The pattern behind ‘be imitators of God’ Paul's phrase “be imitators of God” in Ephesians 5:1 uses the Greek word μιμηταί mimētai (“imitate,” “copy a pattern”). Imitation always raises a question: imitate what? God has not left us guessing. He gave Israel a visible, enacted pattern in the Torah: The pattern of the Mishkan in Exodus (Exodus 25–40) The pattern of the offerings in Leviticus (especially Leviticus 1–2) The larger pattern of His dealings with Israel in the prophets (Isaiah 48–49 and beyond) Moshe (Moses) himself asked, “Show me Your glory” (Exodus 33:18). God answered by both revealing His character and giving a pattern — “the pattern shown to you on the mountain” for the Mishkan (Exodus 25:40). Paul draws on that same pattern when he speaks about Messiah's sacrifice as a “fragrant aroma” (Ephesians 5:2), echoing the repeated phrase in Leviticus, “a soothing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9). So, to imitate God, we do not just reach for vague spirituality. We look at the concrete story God told through Israel's worship, and then at how Messiah fulfills and deepens that story. Called to draw near The book of Leviticus is called וַיִּקְרָא Vayikra (“And He called”) in Hebrew, from its opening word: “Then the LORD called to Moses…” (Leviticus 1:1). This calling comes from the Mishkan, from within the Tent of Meeting. It is a summons to draw near. קָרְבָּן korban comes from the Hebrew root קרב karav (“to draw near, approach”). A korban is not just “something you give.” It is “the thing by which you draw near,” in other words, it’s the offering-bringer. In Leviticus 1:1–9, we see the burnt offering described: The animal comes from the herd or flock, “a male without defect” (Leviticus 1:3) The worshiper brings it “to the doorway of the tent of meeting” (Leviticus 1:3) He lays his hand on its head, and it is accepted “to make atonement on his behalf” (Leviticus 1:4) The entire animal is burned on the altar as “an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD” (Leviticus 1:9, NASB 1995) The person does not simply send the animal off. He identifies with it by laying his hand on its head. In that act, he is, in a sense, saying, “This is me going in. Let this be accepted for me.” This becomes a powerful picture of how we approach God in Messiah. When we trust in Him, we “lean” our whole weight (worth, glory, faith, trust) on Him, just as the Israelite physically leaned on the korban. He goes in before the Father as our substitute. A restful aroma Leviticus repeatedly uses the phrase רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ re'ach nichoach (“soothing aroma,” “pleasing aroma”). The word נִיחוֹחַ nichoach comes from the same Hebrew root as Noah’s name נֹחַ Noach (“rest”). You could almost say “a restful aroma.” That raises a paradox. How can the smell of burning flesh be “restful” or “soothing”? To the modern mind, sacrificial slaughter feels barbaric and repulsive. Yet that reaction is part of the point. It is meant to shock us into seeing how serious our alienation from God really is. An innocent animal — who never chose to sin, transgress, rebel — dies so that the worshiper can draw near spiritually by its blood. That injustice should bother us. It hints at something far worse and far more costly: the innocent suffering of Messiah Himself. This “restful aroma” signals that something has been put right. Judgment has fallen. A costly substitute has given its life. Reconciliation has begun. Rest, in a sense, now has a basis. From common to other: The Mishkan as training in holiness Outside the camp is ordinary, “common” life. Inside the Mishkan's courts and especially beyond the inner veil is the concentrated presence of the Creator, the One who is other, “holy” than His creation. Exodus 40:34–38 describes how the cloud filled the Mishkan so strongly that even Moshe and the priests could not enter at first. As the cloud and fire moved, Israel moved. When the cloud rested, Israel rested. It was like following a Leader through the wilderness: The cloud and fire guided their travel and their rest (Exodus 40:36–38). The visible presence in the center of the camp taught them to stay oriented to God. The very layout of the Mishkan trained them to respect the boundary between common and holy. Holiness (קֹדֶשׁ kodesh, “set apart”) here does not mean otherworldly and irrelevant. Rather, it means dedicated for God's special purpose. The Mishkan was not man's religious invention. It was a Heaven-designed pattern for reconciliation between a holy God and a compromised people. This pattern is as relevant as ever. We live in a world that treats everything as common. The Mishkan and the korbanot remind us that God is not just “there” in a vague sense. He is holy. To draw near, something must change — both in our status and in our hearts. The innocent substitute and the cost of sin Stop and soak in the emotional impact of the sacrifice at the Mishkan. An innocent sheep, goat, or bull dies because the human worshiper has broken fellowship with the Creator. To us, that seems oppressive or even unjust. Yet that discomfort exposes how numb we often are to the horror of sin. We are like frogs in a slowly heated pot. The water grows hotter, but we adjust. We stop noticing how dangerous our situation is. From the outside, it looks insane to stay in the boiling water, or, spiritually speaking, in the “muck” of rebellion and brokenness. Sacrifice is God's wake-up call. It says, “This separation is deadly. This is what it costs to fix it. The innocent must suffer.” All this points forward to the ultimate innocent substitute, the “Lamb of God” who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). In Isaiah, He appears as the עֶבֶד יְהוָה Eved Adonai (“Servant of the LORD”), especially in Isaiah 53. Israel, the Servant, and the Son Here are the main “Servant Songs” in Isaiah: Isaiah 42:1–9 Begins: “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights…” Themes: Justice to the nations, gentle yet firm, a light to the nations. Isaiah 49:1–13 Begins: “Listen to Me, O islands, and pay attention, you peoples from afar…” Themes: Called from the womb, Servant named “Israel,” restoring Jacob and being a light to the nations. Isaiah 50:4–11 Begins: “The Lord GOD has given Me the tongue of disciples…” Themes: Obedient Servant, suffering, not turning back, offering His back to those who strike. Isaiah 52:13–53:12 Begins: “Behold, My Servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.” Themes: Deep suffering, rejection, bearing sins, substitutionary atonement, ultimate vindication. PassageKey themesMessianic connection to YeshuaIsaiah 42:1–9• “My Servant… My chosen one in whom My soul delights” (Isa 42:1)• Spirit-empowered Servant brings justice to the nations – Gentle: “A bruised reed He will not break” (Isa 42:3) • Light to the nations, opening blind eyes, freeing captives (Isa 42:6–7)• Echoed at Yeshua's immersion: “My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased” (Matthew 3:17)• His Spirit-anointed ministry to the poor, blind, and oppressed (Luke 4:16–21)• Yeshua as light of the world (John 8:12) and to the nations (Luke 2:32)Isaiah 49:1–13• Servant called “from the womb” and named by God (Isa 49:1)• Called Israel, yet sent to restore Israel (Isa 49:3–6)• Made “a light of the nations” and “My salvation to the end of the earth” (Isa 49:6)• Mirrored in Yeshua's conception and naming (Matthew 1:20–21; Luke 1:31)•Servant both represents Israel and rescues Israel, fitting Yeshua as the faithful Israelite who restores His people (Romans 11:25–27)• Explicitly fulfilled as salvation reaching the nations through the gospel (Acts 13:47)Isaiah 50:4–11• “Tongue of disciples” to sustain the weary (Isa 50:4) – Obedient Servant: “I was not disobedient nor did I turn back” (Isa 50:5)• Offers His back to those who strike Him, face to those who pluck out the beard (Isa 50:6)• Trusts God as vindicator despite shame and opposition• Yeshua as the obedient Son who always does the Father's will (John 8:29)• His suffering, mockery, and abuse before crucifixion echo this imagery (Matthew 26–27)• He entrusts Himself to the Father's vindication in resurrection (1Peter 2:23–24)Isaiah 52:13–53:12• “My Servant will prosper… be high and lifted up” (Isa 52:13)• Startling suffering and disfigurement (Isa 52:14)• Despised, rejected, “a man of sorrows” (Isa 53:3)• Bears our griefs and sorrows; pierced for our transgressions (Isa 53:4–5)• The LORD lays on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6)• Like a lamb led to slaughter (Isa 53:7)• Makes Himself a guilt offering (אָשָׁם asham) and justifies many (53:10–11)• Central Messianic prophecy in the Besorah (gospel) preaching (Acts 8:30–35)• Yeshua's atoning death as substitutionary sacrifice, bearing sins of Israel and the nations (1Peter 2:24–25)• Lamb imagery connects directly to Passover (Exodus 12; John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7) and sacrificial system (Leviticus 1–7)• Resurrection hinted: “He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days” (53:10) However, many scholars and teachers see additional Servant sections that connect with these: Isaiah 41:8–9: Israel as “My servant” Isaiah 44:1–2, 21: “Jacob My servant… Jeshurun whom I have chosen” Isaiah 45:4: “My servant Jacob, and Israel My chosen one” Isaiah 48:20; 49:7: Further Servant language and mission themes Isaiah 48–49 speaks both of Israel as God's servant and of a Servant whose calling seems to go beyond the nation itself: “Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.” (Isaiah 48:12) “He said to Me, ‘You are My Servant, Israel, in whom I will show My glory.'” (Isaiah 49:3) Yet this Servant also has a mission to Israel and to the nations. From a Messianic Jewish reading, this points to a layered meaning: Israel as a people is called to be God's servant, His representative. But Israel fails to live out that mission consistently. Therefore a singular Servant arises, embodying Israel's calling and extending it to the nations — Messiah Himself. The Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the TaNaKh) uses the word παῖς pais for “servant” here. Pais can mean “servant,” but also “child” or “son.” That linguistic overlap helps us see how the idea of “Servant of the LORD” connects closely with “Son of God” in the New Covenant writings. Messiah, the faithful Son, takes up Israel's mission where Israel failed. He lives as the perfect eved Adonai, the true Israelite who fully embodies God's purposes. From ‘I am the first and the last’ to Lamb of God Isaiah's declaration, “I am the first, I am also the last” (Isaiah 48:12) echoes later in the book of Revelation. Apostle Yokhanan (John) sees “one like a son of man” standing among seven golden lampstands: “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore…” Revelation 1:12–13 NASB 1995 At the end of the book, we hear: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Revelation 22:13 NASB 1995 The same One whose identity language echoes Isaiah's “first and last” is also the slain and risen Lamb. He is the One whose blood washes robes white (Revelation 7:14). Again, we encounter a paradox: We wash garments in blood, and they become clean. Just as the korban system seems shocking, so does this cleansing image. But both point to the same truth: Reconciliation costs life. And that life, once given, brings true purity. This picture escalates through Scripture: God calls Avraham (Abraham) out of confusion and into a land of promise. God forms a people, Israel, as His covenant partner. God dwells among them in the Mishkan. God “tabernacles” among us in Messiah: “the Word became flesh, and dwelt (σκηνόω skēnoō, “tabernacled”) among us” (John 1:14). God finally dwells with redeemed humanity in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:3). Each stage intensifies God's desire to dwell in the midst of His people and to transform them. ‘Living sacrifice’ We can ask how the Mishkan model applies today. Apostle Paul answers this: Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. Romans 12:1 NASB 1995 This is the bridge from Leviticus to our daily lives. We do not bring bulls and goats to a physical altar today, because the Temple is not currently in service. Yet the original and enduring principle of korban — of drawing near through the all-in offering of ourselves — has always held. The “altar” is our whole life in Messiah. We present ourselves — heart (mind and emotions), soul (life), resources (time, energy) — as a continual offering. We “lean” on Yeshua, our once-for-all korban, and then live as those who belong entirely to God. This does not erase the Torah instructions. Rather, it fills them full of significance and internalizes them. The journey through the courtyard, past the altar, through the Holy Place, and into the Holy of Holies becomes a spiritual pattern every time we seek God in prayer, obedience, and service. Love of God and neighbor: One movement, not two The Bible’s greatest commandments are tightly intertwined to the sacrificial pattern. Yeshua sums up the Torah and the Prophets with two commands: Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, and might (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37). Love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39). Loving God “with all your heart, soul, and strength” means you hold nothing back. You love Him with your emotions, your life itself, and your resources. That is sacrificial. It fits the pattern of korban. But you cannot stop there. Real, charitable love for God spills into love for neighbor, starting with those closest to you: your spouse, family, friends, community. In Ephesians 5, Paul applies Messiah's sacrificial love to marriage: Husbands are to love (ἀγάπη agapē, “self-giving, charitable love”) their wives. Messiah loved the ἐκκλησία ekklēsia (“assembly, congregation”) and gave Himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25–27). Agapē is not sentimentality. It is costly, loyal love, much like the Hebrew חסד ḥesed (“lovingkindness,” “covenant loyalty”). It washes, sanctifies, and beautifies the beloved. To imitate God, then, is to let our relationships be reshaped by this sacrificial love. This includes servant leadership in the home, mutual honor, and a refusal to “lord it over” others. Servant leadership and submitting under the status quo Paul's language on submission in Ephesians 5 means “be subject.” The term points to moving “under” an existing order, not to become passive, but to change it from beneath. This connects to Yeshua's own teaching. The greatest must become the servant; the master behaves as the slave of all (Matthew 20:26–28). At Passover, Yeshua models this by washing His disciples' feet (John 13). The Master takes the role of the lowest servant. This is profoundly consistent with the Mishkan pattern. The God of Israel, exalted above all, chooses to “go low”: He dwells in a tent among a redeemed slave people. He accepts the death of innocent korbanot for their sake. Ultimately, He sends His Son to suffer and die to bring them near. If God leads this way, then leaders in His kingdom must also lead by going low. They bear the burdens of others. They open themselves to accountability. They genuinely care what others need, not just what they plan to give. They serve first, then lead. Dying to self and living in Messiah Messiah calls us to be willing to lose your life in order to save it (e.g., Matthew 16:25). This is not just about physical martyrdom, though many have literally died for their witness. It is about daily death to self, laying down pride, fear, and self-protection. Fear of death can drive people to horrific choices. But those who know Messiah has already passed through death and risen gain new courage. They can hold even their own life more loosely. They can choose faithfulness over survival at any cost. This brings the circle back to Leviticus and Ephesians 5. To “walk in love” as Messiah did is to live as a continual offering: We “climb on the altar” daily as living sacrifices. We trust that when something in us dies — selfishness, ego, comfort — something truer comes alive. We lean on Messiah as our korban, entering “through the veil” into God's presence (echoing Hebrews 10:19–20). In this way, the ancient smoke of the מִזְבֵּחַ עֹלָה, mizbeach ʿolah (“altar of burnt offering”) becomes a living metaphor. Our lives rise before God as a re'ach nichoach — a restful aroma — not because we are perfect, but because we are in Messiah, the ultimate fragrant offering. Hands on the korban, hearts in the Presence Heaven invites us to see our discipleship through the lens of Israel's story: The Mishkan shows God's desire to dwell in the midst of His people. The korbanot show the cost of drawing near. The Servant of the LORD in Isaiah shows the mission of Israel and of Messiah. Ephesians and Revelation show how Messiah fulfills and magnifies that mission. To “be imitators of God” is to do what the Israelite did at the gate of the Mishkan: place our hands, and our hope, on the innocent Substitute (Yeshua), and then follow where He leads. It is to let His agapē love and His ḥesed loyalty reshape our worship, our work, and our relationships, so that our whole life becomes a “fragrant offering” to the God Who loves to dwell with His people. The post The innocent must suffer? Why biblical sacrifice still matters in the age of Messiah (Ephesians 5; Leviticus 1–2; Isaiah 48–49) appeared first on Hallel Fellowship.

Questions about what gives modern Christians confidence that they've inherited the Jews' covenant with God if Scripture explicitly says it was with Israel and not the Gentile nations, and why the Jews were chosen.   The covenant in Scripture is explicitly with Israel and not the Gentile nations, so what gives modern Christians confidence that they've inherited that covenant? Why were the Jews chosen?

Welcome to CHUCKYVISION, a podcast about the horror franchise Child's Play/Chucky, the surrounding culture, and other killer doll films. Mark and Dev are unpacking the 1988 horror classic... one minute at a time! In our 34th minute of CHILD'S PLAY, we discuss the return to normalcy after a tragedy in the home, location scouting on Andy's real school, a second Good Guy doll has hit the minute, and our own experiences with being bad boys skipping school. Host: Mark Adams Co-Host: Dev Elson Editor: Mark Adams Executive Producer: Tony Black Twitter/BlueSky:  @ChuckyVision  Our Network:   @filmstories filmstories.co.uk Title music: At the Beginning (c) Dark Fantasy Studios Cover Art: Ama @Amasc0met Logo: Elliot @Elliottt93 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All Learning Reimagined with Teresa Songbird Relational Literacy Relational Literacy: The Invisible Foundation of Effective Learning Relational Literacy Reimagining education through the lens of human connection and emotional safety. Series: 2 of 8 "Kids don't learn from people they don't like. Relationship is not the bonus; it is the foundation." — Rita Pierson (via Teresa) Core Pillars of Literacy 1Self-Awareness: Guides must ground their own energy; emotions are "contagious" in the classroom. 2Safety First: The nervous system determines if learning is accessible. Fear reduces cognition. 3Behavior as Signal: Misbehavior is often dysregulation or an unmet need (Power, Fun, Belonging). Communication Styles THE WHY Visionary & Creative THE WHO Relationship-based THE WHAT Direct & Blunt THE HOW Detail-oriented Nervous System Tools #Breathwork #BrainBreaks #Humming #Movement #RolePlay Keywords: #AttachmentTheory #PolyvagalTheory #Neuroscience Target: Educators, Parents & Lifelong Learners This episode of All Learning Reimagined explores the concept of "Relational Literacy," arguing that human connection is the essential bedrock of all educational growth. Host Teresa discusses how fostering safety, trust, and self-awareness in relationships allows learners to move beyond compliance toward deep, autonomous exploration. The Core of Relational Literacy Relational literacy is presented not as an optional "soft skill," but as a fundamental literacy that must be explicitly modeled and taught. It encompasses a multi-layered field of connection: the relationship with oneself, with peers, with educators, and even with the surrounding environment. When these relationships are strong, children feel safe to challenge ideas, ask questions, and develop the critical thinking skills necessary for the future. This foundation is particularly vital because children are "reading the room" and sensing an educator's energy and authenticity long before any formal instruction begins. The Four Dimensions of Connection SelfInternal regulation & awareness PeersSocial construct & empathy GuideTrust, respect & safety ContextEnvironment & elements The Psychology of Safety and Learning Drawing on the work of Rita Pierson and polyvagal theory, the discussion emphasizes that "kids don't learn from people they don't like." If a student's nervous system is in a "threat state" (fight or flight), their frontal lobes and memory capacity are compromised, making deep learning inaccessible. Educators must act as "champions" for their students, using tools like breathwork, humming, and movement to help regulate the nervous system. By centering their own energy and being fully present, guides can create a "relational field" where curiosity naturally emerges from a state of physiological safety. Behavior as Communication Misbehavior is reframed as a signal of dysregulation or unmet needs. Utilizing Glasser's framework, the episode suggests that "acting out" often stems from a child attempting to fill a need for survival, fun, belonging, or power. For instance, bullying may be a misguided attempt to reclaim power by a child who feels powerless elsewhere. By identifying these underlying drivers and teaching children to recognize their own communication styles—whether they are visionary "why" thinkers or detail-oriented "how" thinkers—educators can move away from punitive power struggles toward authentic connection. Communication Styles in the Classroom

This episode explores how to respond effectively when giftedness appears as behavior problems, focusing on asynchronous development and strategies for educators and parents.

Parashat Tetzaveh Why doesn't Torah tell us explicitly about the 11 samanim by Rabbi Benjamin Lavian

YOU ARE OBSOLETE: Why The Elites Are Panic Buying Gold (And How We Fight Back) DESCRIPTION: They don't think you're a citizen anymore. They think you're a pet.

Guest: Professor Richard Carwardine. The discussion turns to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens'"Cornerstone Speech," which explicitly defined racial inequality as the Confederacy's foundation, a stance widely condemned in the North. Carwardine notes that despite earlier tensions, Lincoln viewed his fast days as successful, utilizing them and meetings with religious delegations to gauge public sentiment and prepare the ground for eventual emancipation. Lincoln valued these interactions to influence and learn from denominational leaders.1877

If oil and grain for the grain-offering were mixed outside the wall, would that be kosher as an offering or not? It's a machloket! With verses as prooftexts for each view. Also, left-handed grain-taking, which is, again, problematic in terms of the grain-offering. Plus, the explicit mention of the left-hand in the verses about the person recovering from tzara'at, and the way the rules of interpretation handle it (no pun intended).

PREVIEW — Charles Burton — The US Silence Regarding China's Threats Against Japan. Burton and John Batchelor discuss the strategic "mystery" of the United States failing to explicitly defend Japan against China's recent escalated threats directed toward Japan's new Prime Minister. Burton argues that China systematically deploys disinformation campaigns to misrepresent democratic Japan's legitimate defensive modernization as aggressive militarism, thereby expanding Beijing's regional influence through propaganda and narrative manipulation. Burton warns that this absence of explicit American allied support for Japan against Chinese coercion is "repugnant," undermining the credibility of the U.S.-Japan security alliance and emboldening Beijing to escalate pressure against regional partners through nuclear threats and strategic intimidation. 1937 SHANGHAI

Click here for more from Everyday Positivity Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

China's Nuclear Threat to Japan — Jack Burnham — Burnham documents China's escalated nuclear threats against Japan, explicitly threatening nuclear weapons deployment if Tokyo militarily intervenes in Taiwan conflict scenarios, marking a significant shift from Chinese minimal deterrence posture toward aggressive nuclear coercion. Burnhamcharacterizes this escalation as reflecting Chinese regional anxiety regarding American-led alliance structures, particularly strengthening U.S.-Japan security cooperation. Burnham recommends robust reinforcement of American-Japanese alliance relationships and extended nuclear deterrence commitments as essential counterbalance to Chinesenuclear blackmail and regional hegemonic ambitions. 1951 LAS VEGAS

We Like Shooting Episode 639 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Gideon Optics, Blue Alpha, Die Free Co., Mitchell Defense, Bowers Group, and Second Call Defense   Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 639! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show! -Gideon Optics- Free Torque Screwdriver with every optic purchase. (one per customer, while supplies last) -Blue Alpha - https://www.bluealphabelts.com/product-category/christmas-combos/ -Die Free Co - 20% off and free ship over $50. ends mon at midnight   Gear Chat Shawn - MDT Hand Cannon Shawn - Falco Fire Falco Holsters Nick - Kenton Industries Turret Strips C&G Holsters Bullet Points Shawn - Secret Service wants new Duty rifle.  Shawn - Magpul metal expansion Shawn - Glock Gen 6? Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out! Agency Brief English Bill of Rights 1689 COLD OPEN: Back in 1689, the British figured out that a government with a standing army and disarmed citizens was a bad idea. Then they forgot. THE VILLAIN: KING JAMES II (THE ORIGINAL ANTI-GUNNER) The Motive: James II wanted absolute power and a Catholic takeover of a Protestant nation. The Tactics: Used "Game Laws" (hunting regs) to disarm commoners. Selectively disarmed political enemies (Protestants) while arming loyalists (Catholics). Built a standing army in peacetime to intimidate the populace. The Lesson: Gun control was created to secure political power, not public safety. THE REVOLUTION: THE "GLORIOUS" HOSTILE TAKEOVER The Invite: Elites ("Immortal Seven") invited William of Orange to invade England. The Flight: James II's military support collapsed; he fled to France. The Contract: Parliament told William: "You can be King, but only if you sign this rights document." THE DOCUMENT: WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS The Text: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." The Wins: Recognized an individual right to have arms. Explicitly stated the purpose was "defence" (not just militia service). Banned standing armies in peacetime without Parliament's consent. The Traps (Bugs): "Suitable to their conditions": Classism. Rich people got better determination of rights. "As allowed by law": The loophole that eventually killed gun rights in the UK. THE AMERICAN UPGRADE (FIXING THE BUGS) The Fix: Madison and the Founders looked at the English model and patched the holes. No Classism: Removed "suitable to conditions." Rights are for everyone, poor or rich. No Religion: Removed "Protestants." Rights are for "The People." No Loopholes: Replaced "as allowed by law" with "Shall not be infringed." The Result: The English right was a permission slip from Parliament; the American right is a restriction on the Government. FACT CHECK & MYTH BUSTING Myth: "It was only for militias." Fact: Text says "subjects" (plural individuals) and "for their defence." Myth: "It shows regulation is normal." Fact: It shows that fighting regulation is traditional. The Bill was literally a response to excessive regulation by the King. Hidden Motive: The English elites wanted an armed populace to check the King, but not armed enough to check Parliament. The US Founders wanted the people to check everyone. IMPACT ON YOU (MODERN IMPACT) Supreme Court: In Heller and Bruen, the Court relies on this document to prove that individual gun ownership is an ancient Anglo-American tradition. Litigation: When states try to use "history" to ban guns, we use 1689 to show that disarming citizens is the act of a tyrant, not a legitimate government. Regulatory Creep: Expanding "sensitive places" and "permit requirements" is exactly how the UK used the "allowed by law" loophole to ban everything. We are fighting to keep the "American Upgrade" intact.   WLS is Lifestyle Savage - Doing a 3D printed build based on the Ruger 10/22. Gifts for Christmas The Alley Shawn - Max Michel from Sig to Staccato Going Ballistic UK Man arrested for picture of holding a shotgun https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/washington-assault-weapon-ban-upheld/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/washington-assault-weapon-ban-upheld/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/senate-democrats-universal-background-checks/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/senate-democrats-universal-background-checks/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/whitmer-michigan-task-force-gun-ban-recommendations/ Reviews ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from Ed Zup - If you're reading this before you've listened to your first episode then you need to be prepared. If you think you've heard some wild shit from your quote-unquote radical friends then you better strap your ear pussies in for a ride. Upon hitting play you will be greeted by 5 cast members and while it will all seem normal for the first 15 seconds, you will soon find out that these dudes are cooler than your actual friends. Shawn, the head of the dick that is WLS, is always front and center, he runs the show and seemingly has seen it all and sometimes he gets drunk and that's when the real fun happens. Jeremy is likened to the shaft, keeps the cast together, is always the one to brag about his size and multiple times throughout the show he will uncontrollably engorge himself with rage. Aaron and Nick are both like the balls, Nick is the higher up one, closer to the head and friendly with the shaft. Seems to have lots of knowledge about the business but you would never know it. For the most part he is quiet and stays out of the way. But when he is needed, he generally has an answer. Aaron on the other hand, he is the lower one, he is the Ying to Nicks Yang, he always can't help himself with getting in the way, of easy conversation. And the rest of the cast always has fun at the expense of Aaron's well being. That being said these 5 guys will broaden your firearms and associated knowledge with true stories, industry news, first hand experience along with a lot of good laughs. Love the show guys. Keep it up. Oh shit, I forgot the 5th guy. Yeah then there's Savage1r. He's the taint.   ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from Sigger Jim - I would like to amend my previous review in which i compared the cast to spices. Shawn is Thyme because his hunting stories waste a lot of it. Nick is cream of tarter because hes a little 'tarded, but the good kind of 'tarded. Jeremy is white pepper because white pepper isnt black. Aaron is cumin because all the dudes that cum-in him. Savage is still flour, but unbleached flour this time.   ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from Craven Moorehead - ▫️▫️▫️▫️▫️ You know, I like having that A-aron character around. His childlike innocence……no……ignorance, brings out the knowledge from Jeremy (the one everyone seems to think is a cunt) and Nick. Sometimes they need to see what a complete neophyte…..no……buffoon would think about a subject, so that they can expound upon the minutiae. Otherwise they would just assume that everyone is privy to the information, and move on. I also enjoy the older fellow with the ptosis of the scrotum. His stories about spoons and hunting and bad decisions sure will put a fellow to sleep. I think that about covers everyone. In closing, I sure do enjoy the podcast. Enough that I renew my cult membership every time the older fellow screws up the billing. No notes   Before we let you go - Join Gun Owners of America   Tell your friends about the show and get backstage access by joining the Gun Cult at theguncult.com.   No matter how tough your battle is today, we want you here fight with us tomorrow. Don't struggle in silence, you can contact the suicide prevention line by dialing 988 from your phone. Remember - Always prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery. We'll see you next time!   Nick - @busbuiltsystems | Bus Built Systems Jeremy - @ret_actual | Rivers Edge Tactical Aaron - @machinegun_moses Savage - @savage1r Shawn - @dangerousfreedomyt | @camorado.cam | Camorado

Anthony Lye joined Quid 14 months ago to lead a complete business model transformation. With three decades in Silicon Valley including executive roles at Palantir, NetApp, Oracle, and Siebel Systems, Anthony has operated through every major technology disruption. At Quid, he's dismantling the traditional SaaS playbook—eliminating seat-based pricing, collapsing the software/services separation, and refocusing the entire company on delivering measurable business outcomes rather than analytics tools. In this conversation, Anthony explains why most SaaS companies will fail in the AI era, how Palantir's forward-deployed engineering model creates defensible value, and the specific mental models founders need to reimagine their businesses before disruption makes the decision for them. Topics Discussed How Silicon Valley's technology oligopolies turn over every five years  Why AI shifts technology from features to benefits for the first time  Quid's transformation from social listening SaaS to outcome-based insights delivery  The separation of software and services as a structural flaw in SaaS economics  How forward-deployed engineers at Palantir and Quid collapse the services layer  Why SaaS failed knowledge workers while email remained dominant Discontinuity theory and how oligopolies resist then capitulate to disruption  The "fired tomorrow, compete with yourself" thought experiment for strategy clarity  How to build executive teams as custodians rather than functional heads GTM Lessons For B2B Founders Collapse software and services into outcome delivery: Quid eliminated seat-based pricing and module sales, shifting from IT budget to labor budget by selling insights, trends, and actionable information directly. This repositioned the product from a tool requiring sophisticated data scientists to a team augmentation service protecting brand health and driving commerce decisions. The business model change fundamentally altered buyer, buying process, and deal economics. When your product requires customization or professional services to deliver value, you've identified a structural opportunity to collapse both layers. Deploy the "fired and competing" thought exercise: Anthony's mentor advised imagining your board fires you tomorrow and you immediately compete against your own company. List the three things you'd do on day one to win. Then ask why you're not doing those things now. This exercise cuts through organizational inertia and reveals the obvious strategic moves you're avoiding. The discomfort in your answers indicates where you need to act. Match decision velocity to execution needs, not comfort: Tom Brett at Menlo Ventures told Anthony to increase from 3-4 decisions weekly to 50. The forcing function prevents overthinking and eliminates "second guessing paralysis." Organizations need clarity and direction more than perfect decisions. Write down every decision, communicate it clearly, and publicly reverse course when wrong. This builds a culture where being decisive and correctable beats being slow and theoretically optimal. Recognize when your hypothesis expires: Quid's social listening thesis was correct initially, but markets evolved while the company didn't. The problem remained valid (understanding brand health, shopping trends, product innovation signals), but the SaaS tool-based solution became untenable as data complexity demanded sophisticated users, shrinking addressable market. Founders must distinguish between persistent customer problems and expired solution approaches. Your original hypothesis has an expiration date. Identify the ox that gets gored: Every deal requires customers to stop spending elsewhere. You must be 10x faster or one-tenth the cost to overcome status quo bias. Explicitly identify which vendor or budget line you're displacing, then validate your value proposition can actually displace it. Most startups fail this calculus and wonder why proof-of-concept success doesn't translate to procurement approval. Start with blank canvas, fail backwards to SaaS: When reimagining for AI, don't bolt features onto existing architecture. Begin with first principles about what customers actually want to accomplish, design that solution using current capabilities, then fall back to SaaS components only where necessary. Anthony warns that additive approaches preserve structural constraints that prevent you from capturing the full opportunity. // Sponsors: Front Lines — We help B2B tech companies launch, manage, and grow podcasts that drive demand, awareness, and thought leadership. www.FrontLines.io The Global Talent Co. — We help tech startups find, vet, hire, pay, and retain amazing marketing talent that costs 50-70% less than the US & Europe. www.GlobalTalent.co // Don't Miss: New Podcast Series — How I Hire Senior GTM leaders share the tactical hiring frameworks they use to build winning revenue teams. Hosted by Andy Mowat, who scaled 4 unicorns from $10M to $100M+ ARR and launched Whispered to help executives find their next role. Subscribe here: https://open.spotify.com/show/53yCHlPfLSMFimtv0riPyM

Shawn Tierney meets up with Henrik Pedersen and Jacob Abel to learn about OTee Virtual PLCs in this episode of The Automation Podcast. For any links related to this episode, check out the “Show Notes” located below the video. Watch The Automation Podcast from The Automation Blog: Listen to The Automation Podcast from The Automation Blog: The Automation Podcast, Episode 252 Show Notes: Special thanks to Henrik Pedersen and Jacob Abel for coming on the show, and to OTee for sponsoring this episode so we could release it “ad free!” To learn about the topics discussed in this episode, checkout the below links: OTee Virtual PLCs website Schedule an OTee demo Connect with Henrik Pedersen Connect with Jacob Abel Read the transcript on The Automation Blog: (automatically generated) Shawn Tierney (Host): Thank you for tuning back into the automation podcast. Shawn Tierney here from Insights. And this week on the show, I meet up with Henrik Pedersen and Jacob Abel to learn all about virtual PLCs from OTee. That’s o t e e. And, I just thought it was very interesting. So if you guys have ever thought about maybe running virtual PLCs to test some processes out, I think you’ll really enjoy this. With that said, I wanna welcome to the show for the very first time, Hendrik and Jacob. Guys, before we jump into your presentation and learn more about what you do, could you first introduce yourself to our audience? Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yeah. Sweetly. So my name is Hendrik. I am the cofounder, COO, OT, a new industrial automation company, that, we’re really glad to present here today. I have a background from ABB. I worked eleven years at ABB. In terms of education, I have an engineering degree and a master degree in industrial economics. And, yeah, I’m I’m excited to be here. Thanks, Rom. And I’ll pass it over to Jake. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): I’m, Jacob Abel. I’m the principal automation engineer at Edgnot. EdgeNaught is a systems integrator focusing on edge computing and virtual PLCs. My background is in mechanical engineering, and I’m a professional control systems engineer, and I have thirteen years experience in the machine building side of industrial automation, specifically in oil and gas making flow separators. And I’ll hand it back to Henrik here. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): K. Great. So OT, we are a a new industrial automation company, the new kid on the block, if you will. We’re a start up. So, we only started, about three years ago now. And, we focus solely on virtual PLCs and and the data architectures allow you to integrate virtual PLCs in in operations. And, you know, some of the listeners will be very familiar with this first, thing I’m gonna say, but I think it’s valuable to just take a take a little bit step back and and remember what has happened in in history when when it comes to to IT and OT and, and and what really what really happened with that split. Right? So it was probably around the ‘9 you know, around nineteen nineties where the the the domain computer science were really split into these two domains here, the IT and OT. And, and that, that was, that was kind of natural that that happened because we got on the, on the IT side of things, we got Internet, we got open protocols and, you know, we had the personal computers and innovation could truly flourish on the IT side. But whereas on the OT side, we were we were kind of stuck still in the proprietary, hardware software lock in situation. And and that has that has really not been solved. Right? That that that is still kind of the the situation today. And it this is what this is obviously what also, brought me personally to to really got really super motivated to solve this problem and and really dive deep into it. And I experienced this firsthand with with my role in NAD and, how how extremely locked we are at creating new solutions and new innovation on the OT side. So so we’re basically a company that wants to to truly open up the the the innovation in this space and and make it possible to adopt anything new and new solutions, that that sits above the PLC and and, you know, that integrate effectively to to the controller. So I I have this this, you know, this slide that kind of illustrates this point with with some some, you know, historical events or or at least some some some big shifts that has happened. And, Aurene mentioned a shift in nineteen nineties. And it wasn’t actually until ’20, 2006 that Gartner coined this term OT, to explain the difference really what what has happened. And and, you know, as we know, IT has just boomed with innovation since since the nineties and OT is, is, is slowly, slowly incrementally getting better, but it’s still, it’s still the innovation pace is really not, not fast. So, this is also, of course, illustrated with all the new developments in in GenAI and AgenTic AI, MCP, and things like that that is kinda booming on on the IT side of things. And and and yeah. So, but we do believe that there is actually something happening right now. And and we have data that they’re gonna show for for that. Like, the the large incumbents are now working on this as well, like virtual PLCs, software defined automation and all kinds of exciting things going on on the OT side. So we do believe that that we will see, we will see a shift, a true big shift on the OT side in terms of innovation, really the speed in which we can, we can improve and adopt new solutions on the OT side. And this is kind of exemplified by, like, what what is the endgame here? Like, you could say that the endgame could be that IT and OT once once again becomes the same high paced innovation domain. Right. But then we need to solve those underlying problems, the infrastructural problems that are still so persistent on the OT side of things. The fine point of this slide is to just illustrate what’s happening right now. It’s like cloud solutions for control is actually happening. Virtual PLC, software based automation, AI is happening all at once. And we see it with the big suppliers and and also the exciting startups that’s coming into this space. So I think there’s there’s lots of great excitement now that we can we can expect from the OT side, in in next few years. Shawn Tierney (Host): Yeah. You know, I wanna just, just for those listening, add a little, context here. If we look at 1980, why was that so important? Why is this on the chart? And if you think about it, right, we got networks like Modbus and, Data Highway in nineteen seventy eight, seventy nine, eighty. We also got Ethernet at that time as well. And so we had on the plant floor field buses for our controls, but in the offices, people were going to Ethernet. And then when we started seeing the birth of the public Internet, right, we’re talking about in the nineties, people who are working on the plant floor, they were like, no. Don’t let the whole world access by plant floor network. And so I think that’s where we saw the initial the the divide, you know, was 1980. It was a physical divide, just physically different topologies. Right? Different needs. Right? And then and and as the Internet came out in the early nineties, it was it was now like, hey. We need to keep us safe. We know there’s something called hackers on the Internet. And and I think that’s why, as you’re saying in 2006, when Gartner, you know, coined OT, we were seeing that there was this hesitant to bring the two together because of the different viewpoints and the the different needs of both systems. So I think it’s very interesting. I know you listeners, you can’t see this, but I kinda want to go back through that and kinda give some context to those early years. And and, you know, like Henrik says, you know, now that we’re past all that, now that we’re using Ethernet on the plant floor everywhere, right, almost everywhere, on all new systems, definitely, that that becomes the right now on this on the today on the, on the chart. And I’ll turn it back to you, Henrik. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yeah. I’ll search that. I just wanna echo that as I think that there are really good reasons for why this has happened. Like, the there has you could argue that innovation could flourish on the IT side because there was less critical systems, right, less, more, you know, you can do to fail fast and you can do, you can test out things on a different level. And so so there’s really lots of good reasons for why this has happened. We do believe that right now there is some really excitement around innovation, the OT side of things and and this pent up kind of, I wouldn’t call it frustration, but this pent up potential, I think is the right word, is is can be kind of unleashed in our industry for for the next, next decade. So so we are like this is really one of the key motivators for me personally. It’s, like, I truly believe there’s something truly big going on right now. And and I I do I do encourage everyone, everyone listening, like, get in get in on this. Like, this is happening. And, you know, be an entrepreneur as well. Like, build your company, build and, you know, create something new and exciting in this space. I think I think this is this is a time that there hasn’t been a better time to create a new new technology company or a new service company in this space. So this this, this is something at least that motivates me personally a lot. So let me move over to kind of what we do. I mentioned I mentioned that we focus solely on the virtual PLC. This this is now presented in the slide for those that are listening as a as a box inside a open hardware. We can deploy a virtual PLC on any, ARM thirty two thirty two and and sixty four bit processor and x eighty six sixty four bit with the Linux kernel. So so there are lots of great, options to choose from on the hardware side. And and, and yeah. So you can obviously when you have a Virtual PLC you can think of it new in terms of your system architecture. You could for instance, you know deploy multiple Virtual PLCs on this on the same hardware and you can also, think about it like you can use a virtual PLC in combination with your existing PLCs and could work as a master PLC or some kind of optimization deterministic controller. So it’s it’s really just opening up that, you know, that architectural aspect of things. Like you can think new in terms of your system architecture, and you have a wide range of hardware to choose from. And, and yeah, So the the flexibility is really the key here, flexibility in how you architect your system. That CPU that you deploy on will will obviously be need to be connected to to the field somehow, and that’s that’s true, classical remote IO, connections. So we currently support, Modbus TCP and Ethernet IP, which is kind of deployed to to, our production environment, as it’s called. So moving on to the next slide. Like, this is kind of the summary of our solution. We have built a cloud native IDE. So meaning anyone can can basically go to our website and log in to into the solution and and give it a spin. And, we’ll show you that afterwards with with Jake. And the system interacts through a PubSub data framework. We use a specific technology called NUTS, for the PubSub communication bus. And you can add MQTT or OPC UA to the PubSub framework, according to your needs. So, and from that, you can integrate with, whatever whatever other, software you might have, in your system. So we have these value points that we always like to bring up. Like, this obviously breaks some kind of vendor lock in in terms of the hardware and the software. But it’s also, our virtual PLC is based on on the six eleven thirty one. So it’s not a lock in to any kind of proprietary programming language or anything like that. There is, there’s obviously the cost, element to this that you can potentially save a lot of cost. We have, we have verified with with with some of our customers that they estimate to save up to 60% in total cost of ownership. This is there is obviously one part is the capex side and the other part is is the opex. And and is this data framework, as I mentioned, is in in in which itself is is future proof to some extent. You can you can integrate whatever comes comes in in a year or or in a few years down the line. And, there’s environmental footprint argument for this as you can save a lot on the on the infrastructure side. We have one specific customer that estimates to save a lot on and this this particular point is really important for them. And then final two points is essentially that we have built in a zero trust based security, principle into this solution. So we have role based access control. Everything is encrypted end to end, automatic certification, and things like that. The final point is, is that this is the infrastructure that allows you to bring AI and the classical, DevOps, the the thing that we’re very used to in the IT side of things. Like, you you commit and merge and release, instead of, instead of the traditional, way of working with your automation systems. So I know this is like, this is pro pretty much, like, the boring, sales pitch slide, but, but, yeah, I just wanted to throw this this out there for for the guys that there is some there is some, intrinsic values underneath here. The way the system works, you will you will see this very soon, through the demo, but it’s basically you just go to a website, you log in, you create a project. In there, you would create your your PLC program, test, you code, you simulate. You would onboard a device. So onboard that Linux device that you you want to deploy on. This can be as simple as a Raspberry Pi, or it can be something much more industrial grade. This depends on on on the use case. And then you would deploy services like, as I mentioned, MQTT and OPC UA, and then you would manage your your your system from from the interface. And, I have this nice quote that we got to use from one of the customers we had. This is a global, automotive manufacturer that, basically tells us that it’s, they they highlighted the speed in which you can set this up, as as one of the biggest values for them, saving them a lot of hours and setting setting up the system. So I also wanted to show you a real you know, this is a actual real deployment. It was it was deployed about a year ago, and this is a pump station, or a water and wastewater operator with around 200 pump stations. They had a mix of of Rockwell and Schneider PLCs, and they had a very high upkeep, and they were losing a lot of data from these stations because they were connected over four g. When the Internet was a bit poor, they lost a bit of data in their SCADA systems, so they had these data gaps and things like that. So pretty pretty, you know, standard legacy setup to be to be honest. Quite outdated PLCs as well. So what they what they did for the first, pump station was they they, you know, removed the PLC. They put in a Raspberry Pi for for, like, €60 or, like, $70, connected it to to a to a remote IO Ethernet IP module they had, in in the storage, and deploy this data framework as I’m showing on the screen now. So so they that was that was the first station they put online, and they they chose a Raspberry Pi because they thought, okay, this is interesting, but will it work? And then they chose a pump station, which was was really just poor from before. So they had very little to to to lose to to deploy on this station. So so, yeah, this has been running for a year now without any any problems on a Raspberry Pi. We have obviously advised against using a Raspberry Pi in a critical environment, but they just insisted that that what that’s what they wanted to do for this first case. Shawn Tierney (Host): And I’ll back that up too. Your generic off the shelf Raspberry Pi is just like a generic off the shelf computer. It’s not rated for these type of environments. Not that all pump houses are really bad, but they’re not air conditioned. And I think we’ve all had that situation when it’s a 120, 130 out that, you know, off the shelf computer components can act wonky as well as when they get below freezing. So just wanted to chime in there and agree with you on that. For testing, it’s great. But if you’re gonna leave it in there, if you were in my town and you say you’re gonna leave that in there permanently, I would ask to have you, assigned somewhere else for the town. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. No. So and and that point is also illustrated with the second station they brought online. So there they chose a much more industrial grade CPU, that, that, was much, you know, cost cost a bit more, but it’s more suited for the environment. And, and yeah. So this was, I can disclose it was a Bayer Electronics, CPU. So so yeah. And, and they reported, some good, good metrics in terms of, like, the results. They they said around 50 on the hardware, 75% on the management of the PLC system. So this relates more to that they have very a lot of, you know, driving out with the car to these stations and doing changes to their systems and, and updates. They no longer have any, any data loss. It’s local buffer on the data framework. They’ve increased tag capacity with 15 x, resulting in in four fifty five x better data resolution and a faster scan frequency. And this is actually on the Raspberry Pi. So so just just think of it as as the the even the even the, kind of the lowest quality IT off the shelf, computers, are are able to to, to execute really fast in in in, or fast enough for for, for these cases. So, Shawn, that was actually what I wanted to say. And, and also, you know, yeah, we are we are a start up, but we do have, fifth users now in 57 different countries across the world. And it’s it’s really cool to see our our our, our technology being deployed around the world. And, and yeah. I’m really, really excited to to, to get more, users in and and hear what they what they, think of the solution. So so yeah. I’ll I’ll with that, I don’t know if, Shawn, you wanna you shoot any questions or if we should hand it over to Jake for for for a demo. Shawn Tierney (Host): Yeah. Just before we go to Jake, if somebody who’s listening is interested, this might be a good time. It said that, you already talked about being cloud based. It’s, o t e e. So Oscar Tom, Edward Edward for the the name of the company. Where would they go if if they like what Jake’s gonna show us next? Where will they go to find out more? Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yeah. So I would honestly propose that they just, reach out to to me or Jake, on on one of the QR codes that we have on the presentation. But they can also obviously go to our website, 0t.io,0tee.io, and just, either just, log in and test the product, or they could reach out to us, through our website, through the contact form. So yeah. Shawn Tierney (Host): Perfect. Perfect. Alright, Jake. I’ll turn it over to you. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): Thanks, Shawn. Fantastic stuff, Henrik. I wanna take a second too to kinda emphasize some of the technical points that you, presented on. Now first, the the fact that you have the built in zero trust cybersecurity is so huge. So, I mean, the OT cybersecurity is blowing up right now. So many certifications, you know, lots of, consulting and buzz on LinkedIn. I mean, it’s a very real concern. It’s for a good reason. Right? But with this, zero trust built in to the system, I I mean, you can completely close-up the firewall except for one outgoing port. And you have all the virtual PLCs connected together and it’s all done. You know, there’s no incoming ports to open up on the firewall to worry about, you know, that security concern. You know, it’s basically like, you know, you’ve already set up a VPN server, if you will. It’s it’s not the same, but similar and, you know, taking care of that connection already. So there’s an immense value in that, I think. Shawn Tierney (Host): And I wanted to add to the zero trust. We’ve covered it on the show. And just for people, maybe you’ve missed it. You know, with zero trust is you’re not trusting anyone. You authorize connections. Okay? So by default, nobody’s laptop or cell phone or tablet can talk to anything. You authorize, hey. I want this SCADA system to talk to this PLC. I want this PLC to talk to this IO. I want this historian to talk to this PLC. Every connection has to be implicitly I’m sorry. Explicitly, enabled and trusted. And so by default, you know, an an integrator comes into the plant, he can’t do anything because in a zero trust system, somebody has to give him and his laptop access and access to specific things. Maybe he only gets access to the PLC, and that makes sense. Think about it. Who knows whether his laptop has been? I mean, we’ve heard about people plug in to the USB ports of the airport and getting viruses. So it’s important that person’s device or a SCADA system or a historian only has access to exactly what it needs access to. Just like you don’t let the secretary walk on the plant floor and start running the machine. Right? So it’s a it’s an important concept. We’ve covered it a lot. And and, Jake, I really appreciate you bringing that up because zero trust is so huge, and I think it’s huge for OT to have it built into their system. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): I wanted to highlight too the Henrik mentioned that the the backbone of the system is running on a technology called NATS. That’s spelled n a t s. And why that’s important is this is a a lightweight messaging, service, and it’s designed to send millions of messages per second. You know, that’s opposed to, you know, probably the best Modbus TCP device that you can find. You might get a couple 100 messages through per second. It’s millions of messages per second. It’s, you know, especially with, you know, we’re dealing with AI machine learning, you know, training models. I mean, we’re data hungry. Right? So this gives you the backbone too. You know, it’s like it can push an immense amount of tag data, you know, with ease. I think that’s another really important point. With that, though, I’ll I’ll get on to the demo. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Oh, that’s great. We do we do see that, Jay, that most of our customers report on that, you know, 400 or 700 x better data resolution. And so it’s it’s a step change for for for the data resolution there. Yeah. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): Excellent. So one of the things that I personally love about OT is how quickly you can get into the PLC once everything’s set up. So this is OT’s website, obviously, ot.io. So once you’re here, you just go to log in. And that brings in the login screen. Now I’m are I’m using my Google account for single sign on, so I can just click continue with Google. And this brings me into the main interface. And another thing that I love is that, you know, it is very simple and straightforward, you know, and simple is not a bad thing. Simple is a good thing. I mean, the way that things should be is that it should be, it should be easy and the finer details are taken care of for you. So right here, we have our main project list. I just have this one benchmarking program that I’ve imported in here. And you also have device lists, just a a test device that I’ve installed the runtime on. Just real quick. You know, you have a Martha, the AI assistant in the corner here. And, the documentation guides is up here. So you can get help or look into reference material very easily. It’s all right there for you. So I’m gonna open up this program here. So just a quick tour here. Right up here in the top left is basically where where most everything’s done. So if you click on this little down arrow, you can choose what virtual PLC runtime to attach it to. I’ve already attached it to the device. I installed the runtime on. You can add, you know, a new program, driver, function blocks, custom data types real quick here. Compile your program, download it to the device. Check the release history, which is really, really great. As you can, you can go into release history and you can revert to a prior version very easily. We got built in, version control, which is another, great feature. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): I can also just comment on that, Jake, that we do have we do have, in the quite short term roadmap to also expand on that with Git integration, that, a lot of our customers are are asking for. So yeah. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): Awesome. Yeah. I mean, that’s that’s another, very hot topic right now. It’s, you know, getting getting the revision control systems, as part of, you know, at least the textual, programming languages. See, so, you know, we have a few, like, housekeeping things here. I mean, you can delete the program, export it. It’s a good good point here is that, OT complies with the PLC open, XML specification. So you can import or export programs, in this XML format, and it should work with solid majority of other automation software out there. You know, if you need to, you want to transition over to OT, you know, you can export it from your other software and import it rather easily. Got your program list here and, you know, just the basic configuration of, you know, you can add global variables that you wanna share between the different programs and POUs or, you know, change the, cycle rate of the periodic tasks, add more tasks. Let’s just get jump into this program here. Both the system uses the IEC sixty one one thirty one dash three standard structured text. So here’s just a little, quick benchmark program that I’ve been using to do some performance testing. Like you, you have the, the code right here, obviously. And on our, our right, the variable list, very easy to add a new variable and pick out the type. You can set a set of default value, add some notes to it. Super easy. So let’s go online. So if you have these little glasses up here in the top, right, you display live tag values. And so it’s grabbing from the runtime that’s running and plopping it right in here in the editor, which I I love the way it’s displayed. It makes it. And, you know, it’s one of the question marks is if you’re doing structured text instead of letter logic, like how it’s gonna show up and how readable is it gonna be. I think the, the text, like the color contrast here helps a lot. It’s very, very readable and intuitive. And we also have the tag browser on the right hand side. Everything is, organized into, you know, different groups. There’s the the resources and instances that you’ve set up in the configuration tab. So the by default, the tag the tags are all listed under there. And here too, you know, you can set tag values doing some performance testing, as I said. So this is, recording some some jitter and task time metrics. And that’s that’s really it. That’s the that’s the cloud IV in a nutshell. Super easy, very intuitive. I mean, it’s there there’s zero learning curve here. Shawn Tierney (Host): For the, audio audience, just a little comment here. First of all, structured text to me seems to be, like, the most compatible between all PLCs. So, you know, everybody does ladder a little bit differently. Everybody does function blocks a little bit differently. But structured text and, again, I could be wrong if you guys think out there in the in listening, think I’m wrong about that. But when I’ve seen structured text and compared it between multiple different vendors, it always seems to be the closest from vendor to vendor to vendor. So I can see this makes a great a great place to start for OT to have a virtual PLC that supports that because you’re gonna be able to import or export to your maybe your physical PLCs. The other thing is I wanted to comment on what we’re seeing here. So, many of you who are familiar with structured text, you know, you may have an if then else, or an if then. And and you may have, like, tag x, equals, you know, either some kind of calculation, you know, maybe, you know, z times y or just maybe a a constant. But what we’re seeing here is as we’re running, they have inserted at a in a different color the actual value of, let’s say, tag x. So in between you know, right next to tag x, we see the actual value changing and updating a few times a second. And so it makes it very easy to kinda monitor this thing while it’s running and see how everything’s working, and I know that’s that’s huge. And I know a lot of vendors also do this as well, but I love the integration here, how it’s so easy to see what the current values are for each of these variables. And, I’ll turn it over to you, Hendrick. I think I interrupted you. Go ahead. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yeah. No. I was just gonna comment on that. Jake said, like, this is the this is the POC editor, and the next the next big feature that we’re releasing very soon is essentially the service, manager, which is the, which is the feature that will allow our users to deploy any kind of service very efficiently, like another runtime or OPC UA server or an entity server or or or whatever other, software components that that, you want to deploy, like a Knox server or things like that. So and that’s that’s, we were really excited about that because, that will kind of allow for a step change in how you kind of orchestrate and manage your system and your, your system and your, your, you have a very good overview of what’s going on with versions of, of the different software components running in your, your infrastructure and your devices and things like that. So we’re really excited about that, that it’s coming out. And it might be that actually when when this, episode airs, who knows if it’s if it’s done or or not, but we’re very close to release the first version of that. So excited about that. Shawn Tierney (Host): Now I have a question for you guys, and maybe this is off topic a little bit. So let’s say I’m up here in the cloud. I’m working on a program, and I have some IO on my desk I wanna connect it to. Is that something I can do? Is there a connector I can download and install my PC to allow the cloud to talk to my IO? Or is that something where I have to get a a, you know, a local, you know, like we talked about those industrial Linux boxes and and test it here with that? Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yeah. So I think you what you what you’re you’re after is, like, the IO configuration of, if you wanna deploy a driver, right, or, like, a modbus driver and how you figure out the system. Right? Shawn Tierney (Host): Yeah. Because this is in the cloud. It’s not on my desk. The IO is on my desk. So how would I connect the two of them? How would I is is that something that can be done? Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yep. Yeah. Exactly. That’s that’s actually the you know, I I think, Jake, you might just wanna show why you deploy a driver. Right? Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): Sure. Sure. And I just wanna take a second to, clarify. You know, it’s something that kinda comes up often, and I I don’t I don’t think it gets it’s it’s cleared up enough is that so, you know, we have this cloud ID here. So, you know, you can open this from anywhere in the world. But the virtual PLC run times get installed on computers preferably very locally, you know, on the machine, on the factory floor, something like that. I I’ve got, an edge computer right here. Just as an example. I mean, this is something you would just pop in the control panel and you can install OT on this. So to answer your question better, Shawn, you know, to get to, you know, the remote IO that you need essentially, or actually in the, in the case of this, this has onboard IO. You know, you’re looking at connecting with MOBAs, PCP, Ethernet IP. I I know that a lot more protocols are coming. Profinet. So how you would do that is that you have that plus sign up here and add a driver config. We’re just gonna do, Modbus real quick. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Mhmm. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): And we wanna add a TCP client. So you can name the client, tell it how fast to pull, you know, any delays, put in the IP address. Just an example. Do the port number if you need and then add your requests. You know, you have support for, all the main function codes and mod bus right here, you know, read holding, read input, you know, write multiple coils, all that good stuff, you know, tell address how many registers you wanna do, timeouts, slave ID. And then, you know, once you’ve done that, so let’s say, you know, I’m gonna read, and holding registers here, the table on the right auto updates. You can do aliases for each one of these. You can just do register one Mhmm. As an example Shawn Tierney (Host): It’s showing just for the audio audience, it’s showing the absolute address for all these modbus, variables and then, has the symbols, and he’s putting in his own symbol name. It has a default symbol name of symbol dash something, and he’s putting his own in, like, register one, which makes it easier. Yeah. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): Good point. Yeah. Good point. Thanks, Shawn. So, yeah, once once you put in your request and you can throw in some aliases, for the different registers, you know, you can go back to your program and here’s this, sample variable that I just added from earlier. You know, you can the registers are 16 bits. I’m gonna select, an int. And what you can do here now is select those modbus requests that you just set up. So it automatically maps these to those variables for you. So that that way you don’t have to do anything anything manual, like have a separate program to say, you know, this tag equals, you know, register 40,001. You know, it’s already mapped for you. So that’s that’s essentially how you would connect to remote IO is, just add a client in the driver configs and, fill in all your info and be off and running. Shawn Tierney (Host): That’s excellent. I really liked how you were able to easily map the register to the modbus value you’re reading in or writing to to your, variable so you can use that in your program. That was very easy to do. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): Oh, yeah. Yeah. It’s that it’s like I said, that’s one of the things that I love about this interface is that everything is just very straightforward. You know, it’s it’s super easy to just stumble upon whatever it is you need and figure it out. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): And just just, to add to to kinda your your processors, like, once you have created that connection between the IO and and and the program, you basically just, compile it and download it to the to the runtime again, and and it executes locally the based on the yeah. Nice. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): Oh, right. Good point. Yeah. Of of course, after we add something, we do have to redownload. So Shawn Tierney (Host): Very interesting. Well, that answers my question. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): I think that’s that’s about it for the the demo. I mean, unless, Shawn, you have any more questions about the interface here. Shawn Tierney (Host): No. It looked pretty straightforward to me, Hendrik. I don’t know. Did you have anything else you wanted to discuss while we have the demo up? Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Nope. Not nothing related to this except for that, you know, this is probably something that’s quite new in the OT space is that this is a software service, meaning that there are continuous development going on and releases, and improvements to the software all the time. Like literally every week we deploy new improvements. And, and what, I typically say is that like, the, you know, if you if you if you sign up with OT, what you what you will experience is that the actual software keeps on becoming better over time and not is not going to become outdated. It’s going to be just better over time. And I think that’s part of what I really loved about the innovation space, innovation happening around IT is that that, that has become the new de facto standard in how you develop software and great software. And I think we in, in, in the OT space, we need to adopt that same methodology of developing software, something that continuously becomes better over time. Shawn Tierney (Host): Yeah. And I would just say, you know, if you’re if you’re on the OT side of things, you wanna be in six eleven thirty one dash three languages, because these are things that your staff, you know, what you know, your electricians and technicians and even engineers, you know, should know, should be getting up to speed. I don’t know. We’re at the automation school. We’re teaching, structured text. And so, easier. I look at this, and I’m like, this is a lot easier than trying to learn c plus or or JavaScript. So in any case, I think, you know, if it’s an OT side real IO control, real control system or data collection, you know, you know, very important, you know, mission critical data collection, then, you know, I’d rather have this than somebody trying to write some custom code for me and, you know, use some kind of computer language who doesn’t understand, you know, the OT side of things. So, I could definitely see the advantage of your system, Henrik. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yep. I I I also wanted to say to that, Stike, the I I do not believe the EIC standards in general will disappear. They exist for a very good reason. Right. Exists to standardise to to ensure safety and determinists, determinism in this. So I don’t think they will disappear. But there are obviously advances now with AI and things like that that can can help us create these things much faster and much more efficient and things like that. So, so but, but the EIC standards, I think, will be there for a very long time. Obviously, the 06/4099 standard is is really exciting, and and we believe that that can be, yeah, that that can clearly be there, but it’s still a new EIC standard. So, Shawn Tierney (Host): it’s not think what we’re gonna see is we’re gonna see a lot more libraries fleshed out. There’ll be a lot less writing from scratch. We’ve interviewed on the History of Automation podcast. We’ve interviewed some big integrators, and they’re at a point now, you know, twenty, thirty years on that they have libraries for everything. And I think that’s where we’ll see, you know, much like the DCS, I think, vendors went two years ago. But I still think that the there’s a reason for these languages. There’s a reason to be able to edit things while they run. There’s a reason for different languages for different applications and different, people maintaining them. So I agree with you on that. I don’t I don’t think we’re we’re gonna see the end of these, these standard languages that have done us very well since the, you know, nineteen seventies. Jacob Abel (Edgenaut): I just wanna add a bit on there about, Shawn, you mentioned, you know, doing less code. I I did show earlier in the bottom right hand corner here, we have our our little AI assistant, Martha. I don’t believe the feature, it has been released yet. You know, Henrik, correct me if I’m wrong, but I know one of the things that’s coming is, AI code generation, you know, similar to that of cloud or chat GPT. So it’s going to, you know, you can open this guy up here. You know, right right now, I think it’s just for, help topics, but you’ll be able to talk to Martha and she’s gonna generate code for you in your program there all built in. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yeah. Yeah. That’s that’s coming really fast now. So, it’s it’s not been implemented yet, but it’s, it’s right around the corner. Shawn Tierney (Host): Yeah. And it’s it’s not gonna be able to it’s you’re not gonna be able to hook a camera up to it and, like, take pictures of your machine and say, okay. Write the control code for this. But, you know, if you had a, you know, process that had 12 steps in it, the AI could definitely help you generate that code and and other code. And we’ll have to have Henrik and Jake back on to talk about that when it comes out, but, you know, it’s gonna be able to save you, reduce the tedious part of the the coding. You know, if you need an array of so many tags and so many dimensions or, you know, the stuff that, you know, it would just be the typing intensive, it’s gonna be able to help you with that, and then you can actually put the context in there. Just like, you can pull up a template in Word for a letter, and then you can fill in the blanks. You know? And and, of course, AI is helping make that easier too. But, in any case, Henrik, maybe you can come back on when that feature launches. Henrik Pedersen (OTee): Yeah. Absolutely. And I’m also excited about just a simple a use case of of translating something. Right? Translating your existing let’s say if it’s a proprietary code or something like that, like, getting it getting it standardized and translating it to the ESE six eleven thirty one standard, for instance, or, so so the obviously AI is, like, perfect for this space. It’s there is no doubt, And and it’s, like, that’s also why I’m so excited about, like, what’s going on at the moment. It’s like there’s so much innovation potential, in the on the OT side now that, they are with all these new technologies. Shawn Tierney (Host): Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, gentlemen, was there anything else you wanted to cover? Henrik Pedersen (OTee): I think just just one final thing from from me is, like, we thought a lot about it, like, before this this episode, and we thought, like, let’s offer let’s offer the listeners something something of of true value. So so we thought, the, you know, after this after this episode launched, we want to want to offer anyone out there that’s listening a free, completely hands on trial of our technology, in their in their in their environment or on their Raspberry Pi or whatever. So just just reach out to us if you wanna do that. And, and I yeah. We’ll get you set up for for for testing this, and it’s not gonna cost you anything. Shawn Tierney (Host): Well, that’s great. And, guys, if you’re listening, if you do take advantage of that free trial, please let me know what you thought about it. But, Henrik, thank you so much for, that offer to our listening audience. Guys, don’t be bashful. Reach out to him. Reach out to Jake. Jake, thank you for doing the demo as well. Really appreciate it. My pleasure. Any final words, Henrik, before we close out? Henrik Pedersen (OTee): No. It’s been great. Great, being here, Shawn, and thanks for for helping us. Shawn Tierney (Host): Well, I hope you enjoyed that episode. I wanna thank Hendrik and Jacob for coming on the show, telling us all about OT virtual PLCs, and then giving us a demo. I thought it was really cool. Now if any of you guys take them up on their free trial, please let me know what you think. I’d love to hear from you. And, with that, I do wanna thank OT for sponsoring this episode so we could release it completely ad free. And I also wanna thank you for tuning back in this week. We have another podcast coming out next week. It’ll be early because I will be traveling and doing an event with a vendor. And so expect that instead of coming out on Wednesday to come out on Monday if all goes as planned. And then we will be skipping the Thanksgiving, week, and then we’ll be back in the in the, in December, and then we have shows lined up for the new year already as well. So thank you for being a listener, a viewer, and, please, wherever you’re consuming the show, whether it’s on YouTube or on the automation blog or at iTunes or Spotify or Google Podcasts or anywhere, please give us a thumbs up and a like or a five star review because that really helps us expand our audience and find new vendors to come on the show. And with that, I’m gonna end by wishing you good health and happiness. And until next time, my friends, peace. Until next time, Peace ✌️  If you enjoyed this content, please give it a Like, and consider Sharing a link to it as that is the best way for us to grow our audience, which in turn allows us to produce more content

Send us a text- On-Demand Programme Link - https://mailchi.mp/bb2a7b851246/kairos-centreDevelopmental history from childhoodThe phase of childhood from birth to age 6 is a critical time of sensitivity, during which time, templates are created which shape future interpersonal interactions. During this sensitive period of development, a child acquires a variety of new abilities and skills that are a necessary part of child development. There are five sensitive period categories, which include language, order, sensory skills, motor skills, and social skills.Many people experience some type of wounding during their early development and learn to numb their pain by self-soothing with one or more compulsive behaviours. As adults, they may continue to struggle with the compulsive misuse of alcohol, drugs, spending, food, sex, relationships or the Internet. All addictions feature a very complex emotional and biochemical process that have origins in childhood trauma and the deprivation of authentic intimacy and bonding during development.Socially induced pathology appears between the ages of 4 to 5 and 8 to 9.The onset of male sexual imprinting is from aged 3 to 4 and peaks at 8 to 9, with an  upper tail at about aged 13. These sex and relationship templates (set up in childhood) become activated at puberty and develop and continue throughout adult life.4 Ways in which juvenile sex and relsp templates are developmentally vulnerable to socially induced pathology:·       Explicitly neglecting to monitor and reinforce healthy sexual rehearsal play.·       Punishing or humiliating children for their rehearsal play.·       Prematurely inducting children into sexual rehearsal play.·       Coercing children into age-discrepant sexual rehearsal play.Our early attachment styles are established in childhood through the infant/caregiver relationship. Four distinguishing characteristics of attachment are:1   Proximity Maintenance - The desire to be near the people we are attached to.2   Safe Haven - Returning to the attachment figure for comfort and safety in the face of a fear or threat.3   Secure Base - The attachment figure acts as a base of security from which the child can explore the surrounding environment.4   Separation Distress - Anxiety that occurs in the absence of the attachment figure.Templates are setting up traits that will play out in Adulthood, which the child did not vote to have at work in their life. Get some help from The Kairos Centre. See what you cannot see. Begin to change that which you begin to better understand.Help someone: https://igg.me/at/ThekairosCentreHelp is here for you: bit.ly/pornaddictionhelpGary McFarlane (BA, LLM, Dip, Certs), Accredited EMDR Practitioner.Key words: sex addiction, addicted, partner, porn addiction, recovery, sex drive, therapy, sex therapy, podcast, relationships, relationship counseling, relationship advice, addiction, couples, couples therapy, sex therapy, emdr, love addiction, behavior, psychology, codependency, sex life, neuroscience, sex ed, sober, sobriety, sexual dysfunction, relationship issues, sex coach, sexual, trauma, ptsd, sex science, The sex porn love Addiction Podcast, The Singles Partners Marrieds and Long Time Marrieds Podcast, Gary McFarlane, porn addiction, what neuroscience says, neuroscience, young adults, sex, sex addict, porn, recovery, porn addiction issue, porn addiction in teens, sex addiction in teens, sex hormones, hormonSupport the show

This was a Ko-Fi Request! Click here to get your request in: https://ko-fi.com/rapcriticAlso, Patrons heard this episode FIRST! Get the next episode, PLUS the exclusive Boondocks Podcast episodes! https://www.patreon.com/c/rapcritic

What happens when two traditional "alpha males"—a former rugby league champion and an ex-infantryman—sit down for a raw, unfiltered conversation about modern masculinity? Prepare to be challenged. In this powerful episode from the archives, host Andy Lopata brings together Luke Ambler, founder of the transformative men's support network Andy's Man Club, and Dion Jensen, a New Zealand special forces veteran and mental health advocate. Born from environments where showing weakness was a liability, both men now champion vulnerability as the ultimate strength. This is not a comfortable, politically correct chat. It's a no-holds-barred exploration of the "toxic masculinity" debate, the role of men in a post-#MeToo world, and the crucial impact of leadership in shaping culture. From the changing rooms of professional sports to the front lines of conflict, Luke and Dion dissect why men struggle to open up and how leaders can create the psychological safety needed for genuine connection and high performance. This is the conversation every leader needs to hear about the unspoken dynamics in their teams. Key Takeaways Is the ultimate display of a leader's strength actually their willingness to be vulnerable first? What if "toxic masculinity" isn't a personality trait, but a product of the environments we fail to control? Why might the most effective champions for mental health be the very "alpha males" society often misunderstands? How can you create a culture of absolute safety where your team feels empowered to take off their "masks" and connect? Actionable Insights Lead with Vulnerability: In your next team meeting, be the first to share a professional challenge you're facing or a recent mistake you learned from. By modeling vulnerability, you grant permission for others to be open and build a foundation of trust. Define Your Environment's Rules: As a leader, you are the chief of your tribe. Explicitly define and communicate the non-negotiable cultural rules for your team (e.g., "We address conflict directly," "We celebrate each other's wins"). An undefined environment breeds toxicity. Engineer Hope into Your Check-ins: Borrowing from Andy's Man Club, don't just ask your team what's wrong. Make it a mandatory part of every one-on-one or team meeting to ask, “Tell me one positive from your week.” This actively builds a culture of hope and resilience. SELECTED LINKS FROM THE EPISODE Connect with Andy Lopata: Website | Instagram | LinkedIn | X/Twitter | YouTube Connect with Luke Ambler: Website  Connect with Dion Jensen: Website  The Financial Times Guide to Mentoring Episode 144 Toxic Masculinity' with Luke Ambler and Dion Jensen  

RFK Jr.'s autism claims aren't about helping anyone—they're about deciding who gets to exist in America.

'Each of us was put on this earth at this time to personally determine the fate of humankind.  Do you think you were put here for something less?' Chief Arvol Looking Horse. We exist in a world where the ultra-rich are getting richer, powered by a system we call 'the economy' which is serving to funnel power and value up to an ever-shrinking core of wounded individuals who then project their trauma out on the rest of the world in a doomed attempt to feel better about being caught in a system that doesn't promote human wellbeing. So far, so very obvious.  The system is clearly dysfunctional and the cost of failure is the sixth mass extinction. The stakes could not be higher.  So how do we create the unity and clarity we need to coalesce around a common cause? Explicitly, how do we create a system that aims for the longterm wellbeing for all - where 'all' is not just all of humanity now and for generations to come in perpetuity, but all of the web of life, the human and the more than human worlds? How, in fact, do we persuade at least a critical mass of our existing system, that we as humans exist to transform our selves and our world for the flourishing of all? This weeks' guest has wrestled with these questions for all her adult life.  Victoria Hurth is an Independent Pracademic who works at the cutting edge of theory and practice to help the world clarify its consensus on foundational issues.  As you'll hear, she firmly believes that we need to agree that our goal is the longterm wellbeing of all, and then co-create the governance system to frame the strategies that will take us there.  We don't need everyone to sign up, but we do need a critical mass of people at all levels of our organisations from government, to NGOs to industry and beyond.  To this end, Victoria co-led the five-year development of the global ISO standard in Governance of Organizations (ISO37000), was Technical Author for the first national standard in Purpose-Driven Organizations and is currently Project Leader of the development of an equivalent ISO (ISO37011). Victoria is a Fellow of the University of Cambridge Institute of Sustainability Leadership (CISL), Director at the Soil Association Certification Ltd and advises Planet Mark, UnaTerra Venture Capital, and formerly Creatives for Climate Collective and SACE – Italy's national export credit agency. She advised the UN on the SDG methodology for the business reporting target 12.6.1 and has over 25 years' global experience in business transformation and as a full time Associate Professor of Marketing and Sustainable Business.   Alongside all this, she is a practicing Stoic. How inspiring is that?  She is also co-author of a new book called 'Beyond Profit' which is one of those potentially world-changing books that lays out in explicit detail why the old system is dead, how slight tweaks to make it 'more sustainable' are never - were never - going to work - and how instead we might craft a new system of governance that allows us to step forward into a world that does prioritise the longterm wellbeing of all life. Beyond Profit book https://uk.bookshop.org/p/books/beyond-profit-purpose-driven-leadership-for-a-wellbeing-economy-lorenzo-fioramonti/7895496Victoria's website https://victoriahurth.comVictoria on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-victoria-hurth/'Beyond Profit' Book Community https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13085230/ISO37011 (Purpose-Driven Organisations) community  https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13091442/What we offer: Accidental Gods, Dreaming Awake and the Thrutopia Writing Masterclass If you'd like to join our next Open Gathering offered by our Accidental Gods Programme it's  'Dreaming Your Death Awake' (you don't have to be a member) it's on 2nd November - details are here.If you'd like to join us at Accidental Gods, this is the membership where we endeavour to help you to connect fully with the living web of life. If you'd like to train more deeply in the contemporary shamanic work at Dreaming Awake, you'll find us here. If you'd like to explore the recordings from our last Thrutopia Writing Masterclass, the details are here

The stories you tell your prospects can either win you deals or cost you money. And with the fourth quarter here, you don't have time to get crushed by objections. That's why I'm bringing back storytelling expert Matthew Pollard. He shares a practical framework and proven tactics to help you move deals forward faster, avoid the pitfalls of group decision-making, and position yourself as a trusted advisor to your clients.Meet Matthew Pollard· Known as the Rapid Growth guy, Matthew Pollard is responsible for five multimillion-dollar business success stories. · Today, Forbes calls him “the real deal,” Global Gurus lists him as a Top 30 Sales Professional, and Selling Power Magazine just named their 2023 Sales Kickoff Speaker of the Year. · He's also the founder of Introvertu.com and the bestselling author of The Introvert's Edge book series, which has sold over 100,000 copies and been translated into 15 languages.Why Deals Stall & How to Accelerate Them· We start off the episode about why so many deals stall out in today's market. Since COVID, buyers have gotten way more cautious, which means more people are involved in every decision—and sales cycles keep dragging on. · Matthew breaks down the real problem: sellers overwhelm prospects with too much jargon and detail, and that just pushes them to bring more decision-makers into the mix.· He shows us how to flip the script by giving buyers a clear, personal reason to champion you and move forward now, instead of letting fear and red tape slow everything down.Storytelling: The Ultimate Sales Tool· Rather than relying on dry case studies or testimonials, Matthew emphasizes the power of emotive, client-centered storytelling. He breaks down his story framework:o Focus on a real individual (not just a company or title).o Highlight the emotional and opportunity costs of inaction.o Paint a vivid transformation, showing personal and professional wins.o Explicitly state the moral, inviting the listener to see themselves in the story's success.Implementing the Framework· Matthew demonstrates how stories can turn hesitant prospects into proactive champions determined to advance their own careers—while making the organization look good. · He provides practical, memorable examples, and explains how even small details (like missing a family event) can make your narrative resonate.“Nobody cares what you do until they see that you care. And then they actually care far less about what you do. They just want you to do it.” - Matthew Pollard.Resources· Find Matthew's storytelling framework in his books, downloadable PDFs, or connect via LinkedIn. He also shares a bonus tip: use LinkedIn voice notes to break through stalled deals with empathy and personalization.· Be sure to check out my past episodes with Matthew: ep 1426, ep 1246, and ep 193. · If you like more guidance with improving your sales skills, join my

Genesis 4:2–4 seems to strongly suggest that humans were already eating meat from animals before the Flood. So why does God specifically sanction the human eating of meat after the Flood? And why does he only give one restriction here, when he gives many more later?Music Credit: J. S. Bach, “Wir eilen mit schwachen, doch emsigen Schritten,” aria from “Jesu, der du meine Seele,” BWV 78 (Leipzig, 1724).

On this podcast episode, we find out that Turkish has killed their million mile promo, we talk about Ritz card rumors, and we shed some light on how Greg's uncle can redeem his transferable points for cash.Giant Mailbag(01:30) - One reader tries to convince Greg to do the JetBlue 25 for 25 promotionMega Airline Promo Updates(04:53) - Turkish kills their 6 continent, 1 million mile promoFind out more about that promo in our previous podcast episode here. (Or read our post about it here.)(09:09) - Etihad tries to make their promo relevant(13:20) - JetBlue promo(s)Learn more about the JetBlue 25 for 25 promo here.Learn about the Dunkin' promo here.Card News(21:25) - Citi® / AAdvantage® Platinum Select® World Elite Mastercard® (new offer)(22:17) - UBS Visa Infinite: increased fees, increased benefitsCrazy Thing(28:01) - Rumor: Is the Ritz card going to increase fee to $695 on Aug 1? Apparently not...Bonvoyed(36:31) - Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan seems to be having a spat of hacked accountsAwards, Points, and More(38:49) - Porter Airlines now bookable using Alaska Airlines miles. Prices start at 4.5k/6kMain Event: No longer traveling? How to cash out your transferable points(41:03) - The premise...(43:23) - Brokers? Please no. Explicitly allowed options only will be discussed today(46:00) - American Express Membership Rewards(53:06) - Bilt Rewards(55:53) - Capital One Miles(57:18) - Citi ThankYou Rewards(1:01:01) - Chase Ultimate RewardsQuestion of the Week(1:06:35) - How can you book a JetBlue flight with Etihad miles to an airport Etihad claims doesn't exist?Subscribe and FollowVisit https://frequentmiler.com/subscribe/ to get updated on in-depth points and miles content like this, and don't forget to like and follow us on social media.Music Credit – “Ocean Deep” by Annie Yoder

Representative Timothy Wesco, a homeschool graduate and Indiana state representative, tirelessly introduced his legislative proposal for 5 consecutive sessions. His bill? Explicitly recognize that a parent has the full legal authority to execute any document necessary to demonstrate their child's education, whether that be a transcript or a diploma. Join Timothy and Jim Mason (HSLDA President) as they discuss Timothy's homeschool experience, how the bill was passed, and the importance of developing relationships proactively with your state legislators. “Often times it's the most conservative and the most liberal members that come together—maybe for slightly different philosophical reasons, but supportive of freedom. And having constituents that are utilizing that freedom really helps to change that dynamic, right? If [a legislator] recognizes that a vibrant homeschool community in their district, that's going to affect their vote on these issues. It's so imperative for homeschool families to develop relationships with their legislators, no matter what the political party their legislator is. We can't make assumptions about their views based on their party”—Timothy Wesco

From lightening and dragons in Iron Flame to trembling mountains in A Court of Thorns and Roses, from Sally Rooney's Connell and Marianne to Ice Planet Barbarians - sex in books has gone mainstream. From serious high-brow literature to warm and cozy rom-coms, what do we want or need from writers when it comes to including sex in their books? To consider the matter Kate is joined by critic Elizabeth Morris (Crib Notes), and author Alex Allison' (The Art of the Body and Greatest of All Time) We'll be bringing you our recommendations for books we think push all the right buttons,once we've figured out what those are.  Patreon Find out how to support the show, get ad-free episodes and extra content at patreon.com/thebookclubreview Keep in touch Find the pod on Instagram @bookclubreviewpodcast Browse the archive Find full shownotes and a transcript plus our full episode archive at thebookclubreview.co.uk Booklist Greatest of All Time by Alex Allison Ice Planet Barbarians by Ruby Dixon Mrs Caliban by Rachel Ingals The Literary Review's Bad Sex Awards The Office of Gardens and Ponds by Didier Decoin Pax by John Harvey The River Capture by Mary Costello City of Girls by Elizabeth Gilbert The Electric Hotel by Dominic Smith The Neapolitan Quartet by Elena Ferrante I Love Dick by Chris Kraus All Fours by Miranda July The Flatshare by Beth O'Leary The Vegetarian by Han Kang Hunchback by Saou Ichikawa Rodham by Curtis Sittenfeld American Wife by Curtis Sittenfeld Eligible by Curtis Sittenfeld Romantic Comedy by Curtis Sittenfeld Elmet and Hot Stew by Fiona Mosley Tampa by Alyssa Nutting Isaac by Curtis Garner Intermezzo by Sally Rooney Lullaby by Leïla Slimani The Country of Others and Watch Us Dance by Leïla Slimani The Bear by Marianne Engel The Snow Ball by Brigid Brophy Busy Being Free by Emma Forrest  

Are you struggling to attract the right donors and volunteers to your nonprofit? The secret might lie in your organization's vision and mission statements. These foundational elements are more than just corporate jargon – they're powerful tools that can transform your fundraising efforts and organizational impact. In this eye-opening episode, I'm joined by Dan Johnson, a seasoned nonprofit coach who has raised over $3 million for new nonprofits and helped turn around struggling organizations. Dan shares his expertise on crafting compelling vision and mission statements that resonate with donors and align with your organization's goals. Why Vision and Mission Statements Matter Dan reveals why these often overlooked elements are crucial for nonprofit success: - They provide clarity and focus for your organization's efforts - They help attract donors and volunteers who share your values - They guide decision-making and strategic planning - They differentiate your nonprofit from others in the same space Key Insights on Crafting Effective Statements Learn how to create vision and mission statements that drive results: - The five essential components of a powerful nonprofit vision - How to craft a problem statement that resonates with donors - Tips for creating a mission statement that highlights your unique approach - The importance of incorporating specific, measurable goals Putting Your Vision into Action Discover practical strategies for integrating your vision and mission into every aspect of your organization: - How to use your statements in marketing and fundraising efforts - Ways to incorporate your vision into staff and volunteer onboarding - Tips for regularly reviewing and refining your statements Don't miss this opportunity to revolutionize your nonprofit's approach to vision and mission statements. Tune in to gain insights that will help you attract the right supporters, increase your impact, and create lasting change in your community. Want to skip ahead? Here are key takeaways: 06:28 Crafting an Effective Problem Statement Get specific about the issue being addressed, talking to those affected, and using their language. A well-crafted problem statement helps donors connect emotionally and understand the organization's unique approach to creating change. 19:38 Setting Measurable Goals and Staying Focused Include specific, measurable goals in vision statements to drive accountability. Stay focused on the core problem and not getting distracted by unrelated opportunities. Regular review of vision and goals helps keep your organization on track. 30:47 Developing Effective Value Statements Another role of value statements is in attracting and retaining staff and volunteers. Limit values to three core principles and including specific ways the organization upholds them. This approach helps create accountability and ensures the desired culture is maintained. 34:51 Crafting a Unique Mission Statement An effective mission statement clearly communicates an organization's unique approach. Explicitly state what makes the nonprofit different from others addressing similar issues, which can help with fundraising and marketing efforts. Dan Johnson Dan is a nonprofit coach that helps business owners and professionals create nonprofits that last. Dan has raised over $3 million for new nonprofits, turned around several struggling organizations, and helped over 30 nonprofit leaders create sustainable nonprofits. Dan is a 4x nonprofit founder, former impact evaluator, and nonprofit coach. He grew his first nonprofit to 10,000 volunteers nationwide in 3 years, and has created federal and state policy change on numerous issues. Dan's work has been featured in The Nonprofit Communications Report, CNN, The Chicago Tribune, The Examiner, Mic Magazine and organizations he's helped have been featured in national outlets including Vanity Fair, the New York Times, and hundreds of local news stories. Dan developed the 5 Levels of Sustainability to give new nonprofit leaders a pathway to creating a nonprofit that lasts. He serves nonprofit leaders through 1:1 and group coaching programs. He lives in North Carolina with his wife and two sons, Alex and Leo, and is a long-suffering fan of Detroit Lions football. Learn more at https://nextlevelnonprofits.us https://www.facebook.com/chngthewrld https://www.tiktok.com/@npmentor https://www.youtube.com/@nlnonprofits Connect with us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-first-click Learn more about The First Click: https://thefirstclick.net Schedule a Digital Marketing Therapy Session: https://thefirstclick.net/officehours

You have your centers all set. Now, its time to 'go play'! Have you ever wondered why your centers are chaotic instead of creative? In this episode, we will uncover the secrets to teaching purposeful play and help transform your preschool center time into moments of joyful learning!Topics Discussed:Understanding the Importance of Teaching Center SkillsStep-By-Step Guide to Teaching Center SkillsPractical Tips to Implement in Your ClassroomRelated Resources:FREE Center GuideRelated Blogposts/Episodes:Episode 107: 5 Reasons Why Assigning Centers Can BackfireEpisode 97: How Long to Schedule CentersEpisode 89: Prep Centers Now, Save Sanity LaterEpisode 87: The Un-popular Play CentersConnect with AshleyFollow on Instagram @lovelycommotionJoin the Lovely Preschool Teachers Facebook GroupMore About the Lovely Preschool Teachers PodcastAre you a busy preschool teacher who loves gaining new ideas, perspectives, and inspiration for your classroom? The Lovely Preschool Teachers Podcast is here to help you up your confidence in educating early learners in a quick, actionable way!As an early educator who is still in the classroom, Ashley Rives will share the ins and outs of how she runs her classroom in a play-based, child-centered way. Each week, expect a new episode focused on actionable strategies to level up your abilities and confidence as a preschool teacher.Ashley Rives is an early educator with over 17 years of experience and a strong passion to help teachers implement child-centered learning in preschool classrooms all over the world. You can follow her on Instagram @lovelycommotion or learn more at the Lovely Commotion Preschool Resources website: www.lovelycommotion.com

In 2007, two designers struggling to pay rent in San Francisco had a seemingly simple thought: "What if people could rent out their spare rooms to travelers?" This question—posed by Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia—sparked what would become Airbnb, a company now valued at over $100 billion that has fundamentally reshaped how millions of people travel. The power of their question wasn't just in identifying a market gap. It challenged fundamental assumptions about hospitality, property use, and trust between strangers. It wasn't just incremental—it was transformative. And here lies the innovation paradox most organizations face today: Companies invest heavily in expertise, data, and answers, yet rarely invest in improving the quality of their questions. They hire specialists who know the current state of the art but don't necessarily know how to question it. They gather mountains of data but ask the same questions of it that competitors do. They reward employees who provide answers, not those who challenge assumptions with powerful questions. This explains why true breakthroughs remain rare. The uncomfortable truth is that the quality of your innovation is directly proportional to the quality of the questions you're asking. Transformative innovations don't come from having slightly better answers to the same questions everyone else is asking—they come from asking entirely different questions altogether. In this episode, you'll discover five specific questioning techniques that have demonstrably led to breakthrough innovations across industries. These aren't generic "think outside the box" prompts, but precise question formulations with clear applications and proven results. Master these, and you'll have the keys to unlock innovation possibilities others can't even see. The Science of Questioning Before diving into specific questioning techniques, it's worth understanding why questions—rather than answers—drive innovation so powerfully. Neurologically, questioning activates different brain pathways than analytical thinking. When we search for answers, we typically engage in convergent thinking, narrowing possibilities until we arrive at what seems optimal. This activates primarily the brain's prefrontal cortex, the region associated with logical reasoning and decision-making. But when we ask open questions, particularly those that challenge assumptions, we activate regions associated with divergent thinking and novel connections. According to research from the Center for Neural Decision Making at Temple University, individuals who regularly engage in questioning and curiosity-driven thinking show greater activation in areas associated with insight and creative problem-solving. This neurological difference has led innovative organizations to replace traditional brainstorming—which often produces incremental ideas at best—with what innovation facilitators call "question-storming." In these sessions, participants generate only questions about a challenge, focusing on quantity and provocativeness rather than immediate answers. Data supports this approach: A McKinsey study of over 300 companies found that those with formalized questioning methodologies in their innovation processes outperformed industry peers by an average of 34% in innovation output as measured by successful new products and services. Even more compelling is research from Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson, which demonstrates that teams that regularly engage in question-based inquiry rather than assertion-based advocacy show significantly higher rates of breakthrough thinking and successful innovation implementation. The science is clear: Better questions create better innovations. Now let's examine the five specific questions that have demonstrated the power to unlock breakthrough thinking. Question 1: The Constraint-Flipping Question Formula: "What if this limitation was actually an advantage?" Most innovators instinctively fight against constraints. Limited budget? Try to get more funding. Restrictive regulations? Look for loopholes. Legacy technology? Plan a complete overhaul. But true innovators know that constraints, reframed through the right question, can become catalysts for breakthrough thinking. Consider Southwest Airlines. When launching in the 1970s, the company faced severe financial constraints that limited them to purchasing only one type of aircraft—the Boeing 737. Rather than viewing this as a disadvantage, founder Herb Kelleher asked, "What if having only one type of aircraft is actually an advantage?" This question led to a cascade of innovations: The airline developed unparalleled expertise in maintaining and operating that specific aircraft. They simplified crew training since every pilot could fly any plane in the fleet. They streamlined parts inventory and maintenance processes. And they created a model for rapid turnaround at gates, since every plane had identical configurations. The result? Southwest became one of the most consistently profitable airlines in an industry where competitors regularly went bankrupt. Application Techniques: To apply the constraint-flipping question in your context: Identify your most frustrating constraints. List the limitations you believe are holding back innovation—budget restrictions, regulatory requirements, technology limitations, etc. For each constraint, explicitly ask: "What if this limitation is actually an advantage? How might it force us to innovate in ways we wouldn't otherwise consider?" Generate at least seven possibilities for how this constraint could drive rather than inhibit innovation. Develop the most promising responses into concrete innovation concepts. Implementation Exercise: With your team, identify your three most significant constraints. For each, complete this sentence: "This limitation could become our greatest innovation advantage if we..." Herb Kelleher's answer was: "This limitation could become our greatest innovation advantage if we built our entire operational model around mastering one aircraft type rather than offering variety." What's yours? Question 2: The Cross-Industry Inspiration Question Formula: "How has another entirely unrelated industry solved a similar problem?" Industries develop their own orthodoxies and blind spots. What seems innovative within one sector might be standard practice in another. The cross-industry inspiration question breaks through these silos by forcing connections between seemingly unrelated domains. One of the most powerful examples comes from healthcare. In 2005, Great Ormond Street Hospital in London was struggling with patient handoffs between surgery and intensive care—a critical moment when communication failures regularly led to complications. Instead of looking to other hospitals for solutions, someone asked a revolutionary question: "Who else handles high-stakes handoffs with precision and speed?" The answer came from an unexpected source: Formula 1 racing pit crews. The hospital sent a team to observe Ferrari's pit stops, where 20 people perform complex, sequential tasks in under seven seconds. This cross-industry inspiration led to the development of new handoff protocols that reduced technical errors by over 40% and information handoff omissions by nearly 50%. Application Techniques: To apply the cross-industry inspiration question effectively: Abstract your challenge to its fundamental pattern. Rather than "How do we improve patient handoffs?" ask "How do we execute complex, time-critical processes with minimal error?" Identify industries that excel at that fundamental pattern, even if they seem completely unrelated to your field. Study those industries' approaches, looking for transferable principles rather than surface-level practices. Adapt and test the principles in your context, modifying as needed for your specific constraints. Implementation Exercise: For your current innovation challenge, complete this statement: "At its core, we're really trying to solve the problem of ____________." Then identify three completely unrelated industries that might excel at solving that core problem. For each, research their approaches and identify at least one principle you could adapt to your context. Question 3: The First Principles Question Formula: "What would we do if we started completely from scratch, ignoring all precedent?" Most innovation is built on existing foundations, iterating on what came before. But the most disruptive innovations come from challenging fundamental assumptions and rethinking problems from first principles. Elon Musk famously applied this questioning approach to space technology. When starting SpaceX, conventional wisdom held that rockets were necessarily expensive, with costs running into hundreds of millions of dollars. Rather than accepting this, Musk asked: "What would rocket design look like if we started completely from scratch, questioning every assumption?" This led his team to break down rockets into their basic components and reconsider each one. They found that the raw materials for rockets cost only about 2% of the typical price of a rocket. This insight drove them to vertically integrate production, building components in-house rather than purchasing them from traditional aerospace suppliers with 100-year-old designs. The result was the development of rockets at roughly one-tenth the cost of traditional designs, fundamentally changing the economics of space access. Application Techniques: To apply the first principles question: List all assumptions in your current approach. What do you take for granted about how things must work? Challenge each assumption by asking, "Why must this be true? What would happen if the opposite were true?" Break down the problem to its fundamental elements. What are the irreducible components or factors? Rebuild your approach from these elements, ignoring precedent and tradition. Implementation Exercise: For your next innovation challenge, hold a "first principles session" where: You list all assumptions about how your product, service, or process must work Explicitly challenge each one with "What if this wasn't true?" Identify the three assumptions that, if challenged, would most dramatically change your approach Question 4: The Extreme User Question Formula: "What would delight our most demanding users so much they couldn't imagine going back?" Average users give you feedback for incremental improvements. Extreme users—those with the most demanding needs, unusual use cases, or challenging contexts—can point the way to breakthrough innovations. Apple's development of voice-activated technology provides a compelling example. While voice control is now mainstream, its origins lie partly in designing for users with disabilities. By asking "What would create a transformative experience for users who cannot use traditional interfaces?" Apple developed technologies that eventually evolved into Siri and voice control features that millions now use daily. Similarly, OXO built a kitchen tool empire by focusing first on users with arthritis and other grip limitations. The question "What would make tools usable for people with the most limited grip strength?" led to innovations in handle design that turned out to create better experiences for all users. Application Techniques: To leverage the extreme user question: Identify your extreme users. These might be power users who push your product to its limits, users in challenging contexts (extreme climates, resource-limited settings), users with special needs, or even non-users who have rejected your category entirely. Study them intensively, through interviews, observation, and collaborative design. Ask explicitly: "What would transform your experience so dramatically you couldn't imagine going back to the current approach?" Test whether solutions for extreme users reveal unmet needs for mainstream users as well. Implementation Exercise: Select three "extreme user" categories for your product or service. For each, arrange to interview or observe at least two users in that category. Focus on understanding their workarounds, frustrations, and ideal scenarios. Then ask: "What features would make this so perfect for them that they would become evangelists for our solution?" Question 5: The Counterintuitive Question Formula: "What if the opposite of our current approach is true?" Our mental models and industry conventions often limit our thinking in ways we don't even recognize. The counterintuitive question deliberately inverts these models to reveal new possibilities. Netflix revolutionized talent management by asking precisely this type of question. While most companies aim to build controls to minimize the damage that could be caused by disengaged employees (detailed procedures, approval hierarchies, expense limits), Netflix asked, "What if we did the opposite? What if we maximized freedom instead of minimizing abuse?" This led to their famous "Freedom and Responsibility" culture, which eliminated vacation tracking, expense approval processes, and rigid reporting structures. The counterintuitive approach helped Netflix attract exceptional talent and build a culture of high performance and innovation that supported their transformation from DVD delivery to streaming pioneer. Application Techniques: To apply the counterintuitive question: Identify your organization's core practices or beliefs about how to approach your market, product development, or operations. For each practice or belief, ask: "What if the opposite approach is actually more effective? What would that look like?" Explore the inverted approach thoroughly before dismissing it, looking for elements that challenge your assumptions constructively. Test small-scale inversions to see if they yield unexpected benefits. Implementation Exercise: List the three most firmly held beliefs about "how things work" in your industry. For each one, complete the sentence: "What if the opposite is true? If so, we would..." Then identify one small-scale experiment you could run to test elements of the inverted approach. The Innovation Question Cascade These five questions are most powerful when used systematically rather than in isolation. The Innovation Question Cascade provides a framework for sequencing these questions within your innovation process: Start with the First Principles Question to clear away limiting assumptions and establish a blank slate of possibilities. Apply the Extreme User Question to identify meaningful problems worth solving and generate initial solution concepts. Explore the Cross-Industry Inspiration Question to bring in novel approaches from unrelated domains. Use the Constraint-Flipping Question to turn limitations into advantages in your emerging concepts. Finish with the Counterintuitive Question to check whether inversions of your approach might yield even better results. This cascade can be embedded in existing innovation processes through question-centered workshops, where each phase focuses on one of these questioning techniques. Innovation teams can be trained in facilitating these sessions and capturing the insights they generate. Common obstacles to implementing questioning approaches include impatience for answers (especially among senior leaders), cultural norms that reward quick solutions over thoughtful inquiry, and the cognitive discomfort that comes with leaving questions open. To overcome these obstacles, start small. Introduce one questioning technique in a low-stakes context, demonstrate its value, and gradually expand. Create explicit permission for "question time" where the pursuit of answers is temporarily suspended. For your first week, try this simple practice plan: - Day 1: Ask the First Principles Question about one aspect of your work - Day 3: Apply the Constraint-Flipping Question to a current limitation - Day 5: Experiment with the Counterintuitive Question in a team discussion Measuring Question Impact How do you know if better questioning is actually improving your innovation outcomes? The key is to track both process measures (how questioning is changing your approach) and outcome measures (how those changes affect results). Process measures might include: - Question diversity (number of different question types raised in innovation discussions) - Assumption identification (number of previously hidden assumptions surfaced) - Exploration breadth (number of distinct solution approaches considered) Outcome measures could include: - Innovation novelty (degree of departure from existing approaches) - Implementation success (percentage of innovations that achieve desired results) - Time to breakthrough (how quickly fundamental insights emerge) Organizations like IDEO and Google Ventures actively measure question effectiveness in their innovation processes. IDEO, for example, tracks "How Might We" questions generated during design thinking sessions, analyzing their characteristics against ultimate project outcomes. A simple assessment tool for evaluating your team's current questioning patterns is the Question Quotient (QQ) framework: Record a typical innovation meeting Count the ratio of questions to statements Analyze what percentage of questions challenge assumptions versus merely seeking information Track how these metrics change as you implement the questioning techniques outlined above This is an opportunity to test an AI tool to transcribe and extract the "Question Quotient" metrics for your innovation sessions.  The Question Revolution Returning to the Airbnb story, there's a fascinating detail often overlooked. Before their breakthrough question about renting spare rooms, the founders had been pursuing a completely different business model focused on roommate matching. It wasn't superior market knowledge or technical expertise that led to their breakthrough—it was their willingness to question fundamental assumptions about how the hospitality industry should work. This pattern repeats across innovation history. The transformative power of questioning has been the hidden force behind countless breakthroughs, from Netflix's reinvention of video distribution to Toyota's reinvention of manufacturing with the simple question: "Why do we need inventory?" Before we wrap up today's episode, I want to thank all of you for joining me on this journey. I'm grateful for each and every one of you who takes the time to watch and engage. If you found value in our content, please hit that like button and subscribe to our channel. It helps more innovators like you discover these concepts. Its our collective way to "pay-it-forward".  Don't forget to tap the notification bell so you never miss an episode.  For those who want to go deeper with these concepts of questions and their role in innovation and creativity, you can check out my book, Beyond the Obvious and the Killer Questions Card deck. All of our tools are at Innovation [DOT] Tools. 100% of the profits are donated to charity.   You'll find the link in the description below. Have you used any of these questioning approaches in your work? I'd love to hear your experiences in the comments section. Your stories inspire this community and help us all grow. And speaking of community, a special shout-out to our Patreon patrons and paid subscribers on Substack who support the channel and get exclusive access to our special content and live streams. If you're interested in joining, become a supporter at either:  Patreon Substack  Remember, the quality of your innovation is directly proportional to the quality of the questions you're asking. One powerful question can change everything. Until next week, keep questioning, keep creating, and keep pushing boundaries.  I'm Phil McKinney, and as always, thank you for being part of this innovation journey.

We talked about this episode for months now, and it's finally here. Garbage collection in its full glory. Classic and free-threaded. Generational and single-pass. With eager and delayed untracking. We cover it all! Explicitly.## Timestamps(00:00:00) THE FUCKING INTRO(00:02:03) PART 0: SPORTS NEWS(00:03:19) PART 1: GARBAGE COLLECTION(00:03:57) The big problem with refcounting(00:08:35) Solving reference cycles through PyGC_Head(00:11:45) 64 bits ought to be enough for anybody(00:17:30) Why a doubly-linked list?(00:21:15) How reference counting makes finding cycles easier(00:26:25) Roots bloody roots(00:30:17) How are objects in the cycle destroyed?(00:31:58) Object resurrection(00:43:21) Why do you need "generations"?(00:52:26) Delayed untracking(00:54:46) Weak references, strong problems(00:59:19) GC in free threading(01:03:27) Reference counting in free-threading builds(01:10:08) Incremental GC talk is DEFERRED(01:11:00) PART 2: PR OF THE WEEK(01:17:15) Type checking the standard library itself?(01:29:51) PART 3: WHAT'S GOING ON IN CPYTHON?(01:30:15) Free-threading changes(01:32:54) Performance updates(01:36:11) http.server supports HTTPS!(01:37:01) PEP 768 and 758 landed(01:37:34) HACL*(01:38:24) fnmatch.filterfalse()(01:38:54) Bugfixes(01:42:46) Curiosities(01:54:49) OUTRO

ACTIONABLE TAKEAWAYS Embrace Silence: Don't fear pauses in conversations. It's natural to take a moment to think about your next question or response during a conversation with a prospect. Setting Conditions for Progress: When faced with a contact unwilling to advance your connection, you have two options: Explicitly ask them what conditions need to be met for them to introduce you to a higher-level contact, like a VP of Marketing. Decide whether to follow their criteria or to prospect directly to reach your goal. Groundswell Motion Strategy: In scenarios where a sales cycle starts with an Account Executive (AE), begin by offering assistance to the AE. This approach often leads to reciprocal help, allowing you to eventually ask for an introduction to your champion. Understanding Motives: It's crucial to discern and address two types of motives, your champion's personal motives and the business or executive motives. Educate your champion on these motives and align them with the broader business objectives to facilitate successful sales efforts. PATH TO PRESIDENTS CLUB Chief Revenue Officer @ Influ2 Vice President of Sales @ Siteimprove Vice President of Sales @ Apruve Vice President of Sales @ Siteimprove Director of Sales @ Siteimprove RESOURCES DISCUSSED Join our weekly newsletter Things you can steal

SERIES 3 EPISODE 47: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: Trump has now finally OVERTLY threatened to shut down the free press in the country, then repeated that threat in a speech at Detroit, and then descended IN that speech to meandering gibberish, the kind of incoherence that would get you institutionalized whether you were 28 or 78 – like him. “A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE.” Once again, he MEANS this. The intent is to punish, bankrupt, prosecute, anybody who criticizes him – that includes CBS, that includes me, and like all totalitarians and dictators that threat to destroy critics will soon or late include YOU. But there is within the threat something almost as frightening. CBS does not HAVE a license. News organizations do not HAVE licenses. Individual over-the-air tv and radio stations HAVE licenses, but if he really managed to take their licenses CBS Television would still exist. So would 60 Minutes. He does not understand this. He is wrong about it. And as we have seen for a decade, when he is wrong, there is only one way out: what he is wrong about, must be CHANGED, so he's RIGHT about it. What Trump is saying is: if he regains power there WILL BE LICENSES for news organizations, and the constitution be damned. Trump also descended into ugly bodily noises and the intellectual skill of a Roomba. And to prove he really was Michigan's Man Of The Year in 2004 he finally produced a newspaper article - from 2023. About 2013. Which was immediately corrected to confirm he'd never been given such an award. A NOTE ABOUT POLLS: If you're panicking, that's part of the plan. There really has been almost no movement in any of the polling averages in three months, and some of the outliers are beyond dubious. The TIPP Pennsylvania poll showing Trump ahead by a point-and-a-half among "likely voters" hides the fact that the data among "registered voters" is Harris by five! How did they doctor that? They cut out almost all the voters from Philadelphia. B-Block (23:08) A LITTLE INSIDE BASEBALL: What happens when one of our celebrity announcers hears the "Toccata" theme from "Worst Persons" at a New York Yankees Playoff game? (27:23) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Should the part of a radio broadcast where the baseball relief pitcher comes in by sponsored by an anti-choking suction device? Kari Lake has a rough night with initials and genders. And The New York Times is right back to cowering before Trump. He talks eugenics and purging migrants; they talk "fascination with genes." C-Block (38:00) FRIDAYS WITH THURBER: If you ever thought the impossible stupidity began recently - how could people that dumb afford to travel that far - you're wrong. Thurber's 1937 story tells of an American traveler he met in England who was deeply offended when forced to read Macbeth because she was convinced Shakespeare had incorrectly identified the murderer, in "The Macbeth Murder Mystery."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this very special episode, Kristan Hawkins sits down with her daughter Gracie, to talk all things pro-life.    Even on very simple issues, Gracie proves that as a 9 year old, she can articulate basic facts better than pro-choicers.    For weekly episodes, insight, and exclusive content, SUBSCRIBE to Kristan Hawkins on YouTube TODAY:  @KristanHawkinsSFLA     Follow Kristan Hawkins on Instagram:  instagram.com/kristanmercerhawkins/   Follow Kristan Hawkins on Facebook:  facebook.com/HawkinsKristan   Follow Kristan Hawkins on X:  x.com/KristanHawkins

Officer Brandon Tatum is a former Tucson Police Officer, he's now a media influencer with his own podcast (The Officer Tatum Show), with over 3 million subscribers on YouTube, and the cofounder of Blexit with Candace Owens    He inspires so many people, including many of our students at Students for Life of America.   We discuss his stance on abortion,  the upcoming election, and he answers questions from fans.    Connect with Brandon Tatum:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theofficertatum/ Youtube:  @TheOfficerTatum   X: https://x.com/TheOfficerTatum   For weekly episodes, insight, and exclusive content, SUBSCRIBE to Kristan Hawkins on YouTube TODAY:  @KristanHawkinsSFLA     Follow Kristan Hawkins on Instagram:  instagram.com/kristanmercerhawkins/   Follow Kristan Hawkins on Facebook:  facebook.com/HawkinsKristan   Follow Kristan Hawkins on X:  x.com/KristanHawkins

Questions about whether the Bible explicitly forbids premarital sex and whether Song of Songs 2:4–6 promotes premarital sex.   How should I respond to someone who says the Bible never explicitly forbids premarital sex? Does Song of Songs 2:4–6 promote premarital sex?

This episode is *giving* millennial

Angela Harders said no to abortion over nine years ago. The decision came with two life-changing phone calls, one to a pregnancy care center and the other to a Planned Parenthood.    Why did she choose life and decide not to go to the Planned Parenthood? Why is she standing up for the preborn while so many others believe exceptions should be made based off the circumstance of their conception?    We talk about this and more on today's episode.   For weekly episodes, insight, and exclusive content, SUBSCRIBE to Kristan Hawkins on YouTube TODAY:  @KristanHawkinsSFLA     Follow Kristan Hawkins on Instagram:  instagram.com/kristanmercerhawkins/   Follow Kristan Hawkins on Facebook:  facebook.com/HawkinsKristan   Follow Kristan Hawkins on X:  x.com/KristanHawkins