A Revelation of Hope and Hopelessness

I had a dream that at first seemed simple, but it stayed with me because of what I felt in it. I was in my office at work, seated at my computer, going about an ordinary day. And then, without warning, I began saying, “I’m going to see Jesus.” I said it again and again. The words felt true and certain, and I had no hesitation or doubt about them.

I got up from my chair, but instead of walking, I floated. I drifted out of my office cluster and into the main hallway that circles the perimeter of the building. At the far end of the hall, where the corridor turned a corner, I saw a bright light. Instantly I knew: this was Jesus. The certainty of it was as matter-of-fact as recognizing someone I worked with. I kept repeating the same phrase, “I’m going to see Jesus,” while slowly floating toward the light.

I was almost there when something happened that was not my doing. Without any act of will, as though I were on a track, my body turned away from the light and drifted right, down the hallway that continued around the square.

What I saw there was devastation.

The hallway was ruined, furniture thrown everywhere, people screaming. But what struck me far more deeply than anything I saw was what I felt. A hopelessness so heavy and final that it was unlike anything I had ever experienced. And I realized, even in the dream, that I had never once known true hopelessness in my waking life. No matter where I had been, no matter what I believed or didn’t believe at the time, Jesus had always been there. His presence had always been a constant in my life, whether acknowledged or not.

But in that hallway, Jesus was gone. There was no presence of God. No comfort. No light. Just a complete absence, and the hopelessness that comes with it.

And then I woke up.

The dream confused me, because in the dream I wasn’t turning away from Jesus. I was heading straight toward Him. I wanted to go toward the light. The turn was not my choice. So I asked my pastor about it, and after I described the dream he said something simple:

“I think the Lord is giving you a burden for the lost.”

His comment made sense of what I could not. The dream wasn’t about my destiny, or some hidden fear in me, or a warning that I was turning away. In the dream, I was already going toward Jesus. The turn away from Him wasn’t a failure — it was a revelation.

I believe I was shown the hopelessness of hell, not as fire or torture, but as the absence of Christ. A glimpse of what it means to exist without His presence, even for a moment. And the contrast was so sharp because I have never lived a day of my life without Him being there.

If that dream had any purpose, it was to teach me compassion — to understand, even faintly, the inner reality of souls who have no hope because they have not known the One who is hope. I think that’s what my pastor meant by “a burden for the lost.” It was not about fear. It was about understanding.

And that is what has stayed with me.

A Little Christmas Circle

A Little Christmas Circle

After MaryAnn and I got married we became the family holiday cookie bakers. Her friend had given her a set of their family recipes for Italian cookies, and we used those along with a few we found online.That first Christmas we baked for everyone and from that point on we were the official bakers.

We kept it up for years until the pandemic stopped all the family gatherings, and at the same time MaryAnn began to decline. We gave baking up and once we could get together again it was easier to bring big trays of Italian cookies from the bakery. Over all those years we always put together a tin of cookies for our neighbor next door. She loved them whether we baked them or bought them. It was something special. Even as MaryAnn was declining she would still make sure we picked up a second container at the Leo’s deli and bakery so our neighbor would not be left out.

Eventually we could not go out to the stores anymore, so the tradition stopped. The other day I had the thought that this is the season when we would be giving our neighbor her cookies, but I had no idea how we could manage it.

Yesterday she rang our doorbell and handed us a container of cookies for MaryAnn, bought from Leo’s.

Sometimes the traditions we can no longer carry still find their way back to us.

Illumination: The Quiet Way Grace Works in Our Thinking

Many Christians have moments when a thought arrives unforced — clear, quiet, and fitting. Not dramatic, not mystical, just a small spark of clarity that seems to land at the right time.

The early Church had a word for this: illumination.

Illumination is not prophecy, and it’s not revelation. It isn’t about predictions, special insight, or spiritual fireworks. It is simply God helping the mind see something it already has the pieces for, a gentle cooperation between grace and thought.

And it often shows up in ways so ordinary we barely notice.

Sometimes a person will have an idea that feels unimportant at first. Then, much later, that same idea ends up fitting a situation perfectly. Not because anyone foresaw anything, but simply because the timing was right, as though a thought had been placed quietly on a shelf ahead of time, waiting for the moment when it would be needed.

Other times an insight arrives with surprising coherence. When someone begins to explore it, thinking, checking, reflecting – the exploration doesn’t reshape the idea. It simply confirms it. The more attention the idea receives, the more coherent it becomes, as if the structure was already there waiting to be recognized.

These aren’t dramatic experiences. They’re simply the small ways grace meets an attentive mind.

Illumination also shapes how many Christians read Scripture. It often isn’t loud or spectacular. It’s the quiet way a phrase may stand out, or a repeated theme becomes clearer, or a connection appears between passages that were separate before. These moments don’t come from pressing the text to yield meaning. They come from giving it space, reading without hurry, and letting the small sparks rise on their own.

Studying, reflecting, learning the history behind the text, all of that matters. But illumination often meets us inside those things. Not by overriding them, but by helping us notice what was already waiting to be seen.

Illumination doesn’t need to be chased. It doesn’t require technique or special sensitivity. It simply becomes more visible when we slow down a little, don’t rush past gentle thoughts, and allow ideas to settle before we dismiss them.

It is not about being gifted or spiritually advanced. It’s one of the quiet ways God helps ordinary people think clearly and kindly. One of the ways faith and thought live together. A small spark here, a quiet clarity there, arriving at the right time.

Illumination isn’t loud. It isn’t insistent. It waits. And when we slow down even slightly, we begin to see how often it has been there all along.

Are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Describing the Same Event? I Am Not So Sure Anymore

For most of my life, I heard that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two versions of the same creation event.
One is said to be the big picture, and the other a close up view. Because the two chapters do not line up perfectly, the job is to harmonize the differences and make them fit.

I have always accepted that as the standard Christian approach.
I never questioned it.
Until recently.

I am not trying to start an argument or present a new doctrine.
I simply noticed something that has given me peace about how Scripture fits together, and I want to reflect on it here.

What if Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not two retellings of the same moment.
What if they are two different creation events.

Not contradictory.
Not competing.
Just different.

This idea surprised me, and yet it seems to follow naturally from the text.

Genesis 1 feels universal

When I read Genesis 1, I see a cosmic scope.

  • Light and darkness.
  • Land and sea.
  • The entire universe brought into order.
  • Animals in their kinds.
  • Then finally, “humankind,” created male and female.

Humanity in Genesis 1 is plural from the start.
There are no names, no garden, no specific individuals, and no story connected to sin.
It is simply the creation of humankind as a whole.

Nothing in Genesis 1 says this is Adam and Eve.
In fact, the text never uses their names.

Genesis 2 feels local

Genesis 2 changes tone immediately. It does not begin with “In the beginning.”
It begins with a time stamp that can also be read as “when the Lord God formed the earth and heavens.”

Here God forms a man from the ground.
He plants a garden.
He places the man there.
Later the woman is created from his side.
Their story is personal, relational, and moral.
This chapter creates a single couple with a specific calling, inside a particular garden.

This reads very differently from Genesis 1.

Two chapters, two different scales

If these are two separate acts of God, side by side in Scripture, several long-standing puzzles suddenly make sense.

Genesis 1 could describe the creation of humanity in general.
Genesis 2 could describe the formation of Adam and Eve for a unique purpose.

One is cosmic.
The other is covenantal.

This removes the need to force every detail together.
Nothing is being denied, nothing is being erased.
It simply accepts that God can act more than once.

It also explains the people outside the garden

Genesis hints at a world beyond Eden.

  • Cain fears others.
  • Cain finds a wife.
  • Cain builds a city.

There is no explanation for these things if Adam and Eve are the only humans alive.
If Genesis 1 speaks of the broader human world, and Genesis 2 introduces the special line of Adam, the tension evaporates.

This approach does not fight with science

I am not trying to blend science into the Bible.
I only noticed that this way of reading lets Genesis speak in its own voice.
It does not force either chapter to do work it was never intended to do.

Genesis 1 can cover immense ages and the rise of humankind.
Genesis 2 can describe a later moment when God calls a pair of people into a special relationship, a priestly role, and a moral story.

I am not presenting this as a doctrine

I am not claiming to have discovered something new.
I am not asking anyone to agree with me.
I am simply sharing a thought that gave me peace.

For years I tried to make Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 fit together like puzzle pieces.
But puzzles only work when they were meant to be cut from a single picture.

Now I am content to see them as two pictures, placed side by side by God for a reason.

Genesis 1 shows the vastness of creation.
Genesis 2 shows the intimacy of God with Adam and Eve.
Both are true.
Both speak clearly.
And they do not need to be forced into one frame.

A simple reflection

All of this began when I finally allowed myself to read the text without trying to fix it.
Once I did, I realized the Bible may have been simpler all along.

If Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world and humanity.
And Genesis 2 describes the creation of the garden and the calling of Adam.
Then the Bible’s opening chapters do not conflict.
They complement each other beautifully.

That is all I wanted to share.

If this idea helps someone else find a little peace, then I am glad.

John’s Adoption Story: A New Perspective at the Cross

There is a common assumption that Joseph must have died before Jesus began His ministry. The usual reason given is the scene at the cross where Jesus gives Mary to John. The thinking goes, Mary needed someone to care for her because Joseph was gone, therefore Jesus asked John to take that place.

I’ve always accepted that because everyone repeats it, but recently I started looking at the scene in John’s Gospel by itself. And once you slow down and read the passage carefully, something interesting comes into focus.

The scene is not shaped around Mary’s need. It is shaped around John’s.

The Gospel says, “From that hour, the disciple took her into his own.” The emphasis is on John receiving Mary, not Mary receiving care. The text highlights what happens to John, not what happens to Mary.

That pushed me to think about John’s situation. John never mentions his parents in his Gospel. His father appears once early in the Synoptics and disappears. His mother is never named in John’s Gospel, not even at the cross. John stands alone at a moment when families normally gather. And Jesus has an unusually close, almost family-level relationship with him.

So here’s the thought that came to me:
“John, here is your mother” makes far more sense if John had already lost his own mother.
Without that, Jesus’ words would almost sound like He’s giving John a second mother while his real mother is alive somewhere offstage. But if John was already motherless, the whole scene becomes clear and very personal.

In that light, Jesus is not replacing a missing Joseph in Mary’s life, but filling a missing relationship in John’s life.

In other words, what if John had lost his parents, and Jesus had taken him under His wing long before the cross? That would make the scene a moment of adoption, not housekeeping. Mary gains a son, and John gains a mother. That fits the tone of John’s Gospel, which is all about new birth and new family, not biological ties. It also matches Jesus saying, “I will not leave you as orphans.”

This way of reading it actually fits the Gospel of John better than the usual explanation. John does not present himself as someone who already has a mother present at the crucifixion. He presents himself as someone who needs a mother, and someone whom Jesus is bringing fully into a new household of faith.

I am not trying to argue against tradition. I just think this gives fresh clarity to the passage. Instead of Jesus solving a practical problem for Mary, He may be doing something deeper: forming the very first spiritual family at the foot of the cross.

Mary gains John.
John gains Mary.
A new household begins right there.

It is an adoption story.

From Doubt to Faith: My Spiritual Journey

For me, when I was younger, questions about God and religion were mostly an intellectual thing. I was taught to believe, but I also saw people around me who claimed to believe acting like they didn’t. That always made me wonder… does God actually exist? And if He does, what’s the right religion?

By my 40s, I had done a deep dive into world religions, trying to make sense of it all. None of it really answered that central question.

Then I met a girl. We started dating, and she said, “I’m a Christian.” I said, “That’s nice for you, but I’m pretty sure God doesn’t exist.”, she didn’t believe me… “Oh you’re an agnostic”

One Friday I asked her out, and she said, “That’s my prayer meeting night, why don’t you come along?” I figured, sure, I want to get to know her, so I’ll go. She warned me, “Just so you know, people will be speaking in tongues and it can get pretty intense.” I told her, “No problem. If it gets weird, I’ll just wait in the car.”

So I went. The pastor opened with a prayer, people stood up and started praising God… and something hit me like a ton of bricks: God is real. It’s hard to explain, but it was like something in me suddenly knew, without logic or debate.

Afterward she said, “It’s okay if you don’t want to come again.” I just said, kind of sheepishly, “Actually… I think I’d like to.”

That night changed my life. I kept going, had a few more experiences like that, and about a month later, at a church picnic, I became a believer.

That girl became my wife. She has dementia now, and is unable to speak except in rare lucid moments. One time I was able to tell her how much I love her, and she was able to say “I know.”

Message to Christian Gatekeepers

I had an exchange in comments with what I will call Christian Gatekeepers. They gate keep the country when they want to turn away immigrants and asylum seekers, and they use Heaven as justification saying Heaven has a strict immigration policy. Sounds cool, but this is also gate keeping.

My response is heaven is open to everyone. Yes, absolutely everyone.

There is only two simple requirements. That you Love God, and Love your neighbor.

But then they say: “No! What about Jesus!”

Well it’s Jesus himself who said this, so I’m going to add here for people who are easily confused:

When Jesus said these things allow you to enter life he knew he was talking to a believer, In the same way it goes without saying you need belief in Jesus to enter life.

Think about it, the commands are to Love. And God is Love, Jesus is God.

If Love is in your heart, that’s Jesus!

If there is no love in your heart, where does that put you with respect to Jesus?

Now here is a part, try to understand…. This love is “Agape” in Greek. That’s totally committed self sacrificing Love”,

And so many christians, that push back on.. “You gotta Love”, don’t understand what Christian Love is. They think of it in emotional terms. It’s not that. Emotional Love, in many ways is self serving, it’s an internal feeling.

Agape Love is Active, Proactive. It’s constructive, supportive and yes.. it’s is transformational. It transforms the loved, and it transforms the lover.

How can I say this? Because God is Love, that’s why.

John 3:16. For God so Loved the world he gave his only Son so that whosoever believes in him shall have eternal Life. That’s Agape in action! Jesus is Love and the Life.

So this is why it’s so important when Jesus said, what you did for the poor and needy you did for Me.

It’s not for us to say “Get a job!” to them, or say “It’s not my problem take care of yourself!” We need to Agape them.

An unpopular opinion about health care for undocumented immigrants.

I’ve been thinking about how both political parties agree that federal funds shouldn’t be used for healthcare for undocumented immigrants. To me, that’s wrong, especially coming from people who call themselves Christians.

Over time, I’ve come to realize how far the “Christian Right” has drifted from what Jesus actually taught. They talk a lot about faith, but very little about love. I’ve changed my view on Paul, I still think he’s important, but I focus on what Jesus said. In the version of Christianity shaped by Paul’s letters, the way to heaven is “faith alone.” Love becomes optional. And when I bring up the lack of love, I’m told, “That was the old covenant.”

But that misses the point entirely. In the new covenant, God writes the law on our hearts, and that law is summed up in two simple commands: Love God and love your neighbor. If someone’s heart lacks that love, then, as James said, their faith is dead.

The Christian Right’s worldview is built on individualism, the idea that everyone should be self-sufficient and that helping others makes them dependent. But that’s not Christianity. That’s selfishness dressed up as holiness. Jesus taught self-giving, not self-protection.

How can they think what Jesus taught is the “old covenant”? Easy, the gospel of Jesus is very different from the interpreted gospel of Paul. If you look closely, Jesus’s gospel already contains it all, the moral law (summed up in love) and the faith (in John 3:16). Paul might have meant the same thing, but even Peter said people misunderstand him. James tried to correct that misunderstanding, but mainstream Christianity became Pauline instead of Christ-like.

Maybe if we actually followed what Jesus said, love God, love your neighbor, we wouldn’t be so eager to deny healthcare, compassion, or dignity to anyone.